Insured with a light motor vehicle license can drive a transport vehicle under 7500 kg without additional authorization; deductions for VRS benefits and mediclaim reimbursements are not applicable in calculating statutory compensation.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. MODAK, J.

In this appeal there is a challenge to an Award dated 1^st February 2024 passed by the learned Member, M.A.C.T. Mumbai in Application No.626/2017. It was an injury claim. The insured has not appeared whereas the insurer contested the claim petition. Both of them have adduced oral and documentary evidence. Tribunal held that driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent. The claimant was standing on the road. The compensation awarded is Rs.58,54,183/- along with interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

2. I have heard Mr. Diwan, the learned Advocate for the Appellant-Insurance Company and learned Advocate More for Respondent No.1- Claimant. Mr. Diwan raised the following points:

(i) The driver of the insured vehicle was holding the licence to drive light motor vehicle non-transport whereas the tempo is having weight of 7500 kg.

(ii) The claimant has received Rs.1,75,000/- from mediclaim of Star Health and Allied Insurance Company and as such this amount ought to have been deducted.

(iii) The date of accident is 8^th January 2015 whereas claimant has taken voluntary retirement on 23^rd May 2016. She has received retirement benefits and also pension. If this amount is considered, there is no loss of future income. The reason for VRS is not mentioned in the letter dated 23^rd May 2016.

3. By way of reply Mr. More made the following submissions:

(A) That the issue of licence holder of light motor vehicle non-transport driving a heavy transport vehicle of 7500 kg is no more res integra and it is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Rambha Devi and others, Civil Appeal No.841/2028.

(B) The amount received from mediclaim policy is a separate and is decided by Full Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Mrs. Dolly Satish Gandhi and anr., First Appeal No. 1344/2018

(C) Retirement benefits stand on a different footing and they are by way of compensation offered by the employer for the services rendered by an employee.

(D) the amount of pension is not same as that of a monthly income during service.

(E) the employee can take retirement for various reasons. It may be due to disability or it may be due to his own volition.

4. There is no challenge to the issue of rash and negligent act of the insured vehicle. Minimum facts are stated for understanding purpose.

5. The claimant was working in Naval Materials Research Laboratory on Shil-Badlapur road and she was drawing a salary of Rs.93,990/- per month. On 8^th January 2015 at about 17.15 hours she was waiting outside office gate and at that time the driver of the tempo bearing MH-11 T-5517 was taking reverse in high and excessive speed and without blowing any horn gave dash to the claimant. During her cross-examination an attempt was made to point out her fault of standing in the middle of the road. However, it has failed. She has lodged complaint with Shivaji Nagar Police station under Section 279 ,337,338 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act. She has tendered a copy of the spot panchnama. The tempo was without cleaner. The driver ought to have taken care when he was not assisted by cleaner. This evidence is sufficient to hold the driver guilty for rash and negligent driv