Compensation for wrongful death under the Motor Vehicles Act must not deduct pension or insurance benefits; claimants are also entitled to future prospects enhancement regardless of the deceased's age.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award dated 12.07.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Moradabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 253 of 2018 ( Smt. Mugga Devi and others vs. Makkhan Singh and others ) whereby for the untimely death of Jaiprakash Singh in a road accident that occurred on 07.02.2018, a compensation of Rs.4,76,620/- along with interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants(wife and sons), which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle No.UP-21-BK-5747.

2. Since there is no cross-appeal by owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle as such, the factum of accident and negligence of offending driver is not disputed by the respondents.

3. Sri Abhishek Tripathi holding brief of Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar, learned counsel for the claimants - appellants submitted that Jaiprakash Singh (deceased) was a pensioner, who was getting monthly pension of Rs.23,936/- per month and was about 73 years old at the time of the accident, which was duly proved by the claimants, but on the ground that the wife of the deceased was getting family pension of Rs.14,900/- per month, the Tribunal has assessed compensation on the differential amount of Rs.9,036/- per month, which is erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hanumantharaju B. through LRs. vs. M. Akram Pasha and another , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1106, the compensation should have been assessed on the basis of pension received by the deceased at the time of the accident and tribunal was not supposed to consider the family pension granted to the wife of the deceased after the accident. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimants were also entitled to compensation on future prospects of the deceased @ 20%, keeping in view Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 but the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards it. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded inadequate amount of compensation under non-pecuniary heads, which requires enhancement. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and enhanced compensation be paid to the claimants.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the deceased was about 73 years old at the time of the accident, who had no future prospects and the wife of the deceased was also getting family pension of Rs.14,900/- per month, which the Tribunal has rightly deducted from the pension of the deceased for assessing the compensation, as such, the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal and this appeal deserves no interference from this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal is meritless and is liable to be rejected.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Sebastiani Lakra and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another , (2019) 17 SCC 465 (By 3 Judges), while discussing the amount which are to be deducted f