Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. G. Sohani, R. K. Vijayvargiya and K. N. Shukla, JJ.
KASHMIRAN MATHUR - Appellant
Versus
SARDAR RAJENDRASINGH - Respondents
Misc. Appeal 123 Of 1978
Decided On : 10/04/1982
Per Shukla, J.-If the deceased was entitled to the amount of insurance under a contract and for which he had paid premiums, the receipt of such an amount by the legal representatives is not deductible from the damages payable to them. The deceased had not insured himself and paid premiums all the years during his life time for the benefit of the tort-feasor. This sum represented his thrift for his own benefit and for the benefit or his family. It is, therefore, not for the tort-feasor to seek any advantage out of this receipt.
The same principle will apply to payments of provident funds and gratuity 1974 JLJ 279=1931 (II) MPWN 128 and 1981 (1) MPWN 215 (on this point) overruled. 1969 A.C.J. 363 relied on. [Paras 22, 23 and 30]
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939--S. 110-B--award of compensation under amount of family pension can reasonably he deducted if nature and incident of pension are ascertained and probable benefits available to the deceased are taken into account. [Para 25]
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-S. 110-B-ex-gratia payment made to legal representative of the deceased -deductible from compensation. [Para 26]
(4) Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-S. 110-B-Claims Tribunal 0inquiring into a claim under S. 110-B of M.V. Act-bound to apply law contained in F.A. Act.
Per Sohani and Vijaywargiya JJ.-It is no longer permissible to hold that the power of a tribunal awarding compensation under section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act to the dependants of a deceased is wider than the power, which a Civil Court exercised while awarding compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. A Claims Tribunal inquiring into a claim for compensation under section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of a fatel accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle is bound to apply the law as contained in the Fatal Accidents Act.
Sections 110 to 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act have not brought about any reform affecting the basis or extent of liability and we have, therefore, to turn to the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, without taking into consideration the reforms brought about in England or in other countries, for deciding the amount of compensa1ion payable to the dependants of the deceased in the case of a fatal accident caused by a Motor Vehicle. AIR 1976 SC 237 followed, 1970 JLJ 310, approved. Contrary observations in 1971 JLJ 203 over ruled. [Paras 35 and 36]
(5) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-S. 110-B-compensation under-deductions from-principles, what are-acceleration of benefits by death-selection of multiplier normally takes care of such accelaration-benefits directly attribulable to death-when may be deducted.
Per Sohani and Vijaywargiya, JJ.-Where claimants receive a benefit on the death of the deceased, though death by accident was the occasion which made the claimants recipient of those benefits, the claimants would nevertheless have received those benefits, at some point of time in future because death of the deceased was an event, which was certain Death of the deceased by accident has merely accelerated the receipt of benefits, which the claimants would have in any case received at some future date. In such cases, pecuniary benefits come to the claimants not by reason of the death in question, i.e. death due to accident. The pecuniary advantages received by the claimants in such cases by reason of death is the advantage gained by acceleration of their interest. Now the question for consideration is whether that advantage has to be taken note of while awarding compensation. It may, however, be noted that the extent of loss sustained by the claimants is based on date which cannot be ascertained- with certainty and is necessarily a matter of estimate and conjecture. After ascertaining the annual dependency, the multiplier selected is not equal to the remainder of the working life of the deceased. It is much less, taking into account the uncertainties of life. Under these circumstances, it can be held that the selection of a multiplier normally takes care of the acceleration of the interest of the claimants in the benefits, which they have received on death of the deceased, unless in any particular case, material is brought on record to show that the acceleration of interest of the claimants is not taken care of, in selecting the multiplier in that case.
In some cases, however, the benefits received by the claimant are directly attributable to the death of the deceased by accident. If these benefits are received from an employer of the deceased, then claimants by reason pecuniary advantages may be held to have come to the claimants by reason of death. [Paras 42 and 43]
( 1 ) BOTH these appeals by the rival parties arise out of the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratlam is Claim Case No. 4 of 1974 dated 132-1978. These appeals came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court where a question arose whether the Claims Tribunal was right in directing that payments received by the claimants on account of the Life Insurance Policy of the deceased. Provident fund, family pension, gratuity and ex gratia payment were deductible from the total amount of compensation assessed on account of the death of the deceased. The Division Bench noted the difference of opinion expressed by different High Courts on this question and referred the appeals for decision by a larger Bench. The appeals have, therefore, been placed before the Full Bench for decision.
( 2 ) THE accident in which Iqbal Bahadur Mathur lost his life occurred on 12-71973 at about 10. 00 p. m. on the main street, of Ratlam city. On the night of the accident, the motor cycle No. MPM 6099 owned and driven by Rajendrasingh (non-applicant No. 1), dashed against Iqbal Bahadur Mathur. Iqbal Bahadur Mathur received injuries and succumbed thereto the same night. ( 3 ) CLAIMANT No. 1 is the widow, claimant No. 2 is the son and claimants 3 and 4 are the unmarried daughters of the deceased. Their case was that the accident occurred because non-applicant No. 1 Rajendrasingh was driving the motor cycle in a rash and reckless manner. It was pleaded that Iqbal Bahadur Mathur was a Government employee and was receiving a salary of Rs. 750 per month and was also practising as a homeopath. According to the claimants the deceased was a healthy person aged 54 years. He was expecting promotion and pay hike in the near future. Besides, he would have been gainfully employed on account of his past experience in the State Industrial Department Claimants laid a claim for Rs. 2 lacs as compensation.
( 4 ) NON-APPLICANT No. 1 Rajendrasingh and non-applicant No. 2 the Insurance Company denied the liability. It was denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of Rajendrasingh. They also denied the quantum of compensation claimed. It was pleaded that the claimants received insurance amount, family pension and gratuity on the death of Iqbal Bahadur Mathur and this amount was liable to be deducted from the amount of compensation, if any.
( 5 ) THE Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to negligence of non-applicant No. 1 Rajendrasingh and compensation was payable to the claimants by Rajendrasingh and the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured. Estimating the total compensation at Rs. 32,000 the Claims Tribunal observed that the claimants had received Rs. 23,000 on account of Insurance, provident fund, family pension and ex gratia amount, and this amount was liable to be deducted from the amount of compensation. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 9,000 as compensation payable to the claimants. Out of this amount the Tribunal fastened the liability of Rs. 5,000 on the Insurance Company and the rest on Rajendrasingh because according to the Tribunal the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 5,000 only under Section 95 (2) (b) (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
( 6 ) IN Misc. Appeal No. 122 of 1978 non-applicant No. 1 Rajendrasingh has challenged his liability, the quantum, and also the finding about the alleged limited liability of the Insurance Company. In Misc. Appeal No. 123 of 1978 the claimants have sought enhancement of compensation. They have further challenged the finding about deduction of the alleged benefits out of the total amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal.
( 7 ) WHEN the matter came up for hearing before the Full Bench, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that he would confine his claim in appeal to the deductions made by the Claims Tribunal and would not dispute the amount of compensation determined by it. The learned counsel for
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
