1981 Supreme(MP) 370

C.P. Sen, J.
Government of M. P. v. Stamim Khan.
Misc. App. No. 60 of 1975 (J); Decided on 6-7-1981.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-S. 110-B-amount of compensation -determination of-pecuniary advantage form every source to be deducted-claimant gelling employment in place of deceased-advantage of such employment -not liable for deductions.

       

        The Claims Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the milk van by the respondent No.1 and as such the appellants being the owner of the Van they are also vicariously liable, the deceased at the relevant time was working as an Artisan on a monthly salary of Rs. 357/- and he was contributing, Rs. 150/- per month for the maintenance of respondents 2 to 4. The deceased was expected to Li"Ve up to 60 years, Applying the multiple of 18 the amount of compensation came to Rs. 32,400/- and deducting an amount of Rs. 2,500/- received from the G. P. F. of the deceased and giving an allowance of 10% for the uncertainties of life, the balance of Rs. 26,910/ has been awarded.

        Held: It has been proved that the deceased was aged 29 years at the time of the accident and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 357/- per month. Therefore, his contribution of Rs. 150/- per month towards maintenance of his family members cannot be said to be unreasonable. Rightly, looking to his age, it has been taken as the multiplier and the compensation payable comes to Rs. 32,400/-. However, while allowing deduction of the G. P. F. amount of the deceased, the tribunal has wrongly not allowed deduction of Rs. 500/- which was ex-gratia payment by the Heavy Electricals Ltd. and Rs. 4,000/- received from the Insurance Co. It is true that the Respondent No.2 in her evidence has stated that this amount has been taken by her mother-in-law. She is one of the legal representatives as defined under the Fatal Accidents Act. That is the reason why she has not been made a party to this claim petition.

       The Supreme Court in M/s Shaikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. v. Northern India Transporters insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 1966 SC 1750) has held that the general principle is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever sources come to them by reason of the death, that is, the balance of Ion and gain to a dependent by the death must be ascertained. Following this decision, a Division Bench of this Court in Sushiladevi v. Ibrahim (1974 JLJ 279). has held that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as it stands, the Court has to, as it must, set off against the probable loss which the dependant has suffered, any pecuniary advantage which he has received from any source, as a result of the death such as pension, whether contributory or non-contributory, insurance or gratuity. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 4,500/- has to be deducted from the amount of compensation a warded by the tribunal. Besides, it is urged that the Tribunal has not given allowance for the lumpsum payment, but the Tribunal was justified in holding that the salary of Rs. 300/- per month the respondent No.2 is getting after the death of her husband, cannot be said to be a pecuniary benefit to the claimants by reason of the death of the deceased. Hence this cannot be set off against pecuniary loss. She is earning the salary on her own labour. May be she got employment out of grace on the pan of the employers. Therefore, deducting an amount of Rs. 4,500/- the balance is Rs. 22,410/-. Giving allowance of Rs. 2,010/- for lump-sum payment the compensation payable is Rs. 20,000/- AIR 1966 SC 1750 and 1974 JLJ 279 followed. Appeal partly allowed.