Judgment on Board

1. Since both of these appeals have arisen out of a common accident and since common question of law and fact is involved in both of these appeals, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. MAC/109/2020 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company whereas MAC/218/2020 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the impugned award dated 17/10/2019 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saraipali, District Mahasamund in Claim Case No. 46/2018 whereby compensation of Rs. 82,99,639/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants for the death of Ramkrishna Banchor, aged about 50 years, and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company.

3. Mr. Sangeet Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC/109/2020, would submit that since the son of deceased namely Pramod Kumar Banchor was granted compassionate appointment, therefore, he does not have the right to claim compensation and the claim case as filed by him (being one of the claimants) is liable to be dismissed in toto.

4. Mr. Suraj Patel, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in MAC/218/2020, would submit that Premanand Das (A.W.-2), who works as Accountant at the Government Higher Secondary School, Saraipali, has proved the salary slip of the deceased in the month of July, 2018 (Ex. A/7) and has stated that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 84,622/-, however, the Claims Tribunal has taken the gross salary of the deceased as Rs. 81,500/- per month, thus, the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be enhanced.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

MAC/109/2020 :-

6. So far as the question of grant of compensation to the person who has been granted compassionate appointment is concerned, it is no longer res integra and has been decided by the Supreme Court in the matter of Vimal Kanwar and Others v. Kishore Dan and Others ¹(2013) 7 SCC 476 in which the question was framed in paragraph 20 and it was answered in paragraph 21 of the judgment, which states as under :-

“20. The second issue is “whether the salary receivable by the claimant on compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’ liable for deduction”.

21. “Compassionate appointment” can be one of the conditions of service of an employee, if a scheme to that effect is framed by the employer. In case, the employee dies in harness i.e. while in service leaving behind the dependants, one of the dependants may request for compassionate appointment to maintain the family of the deceased employee who dies in harness. This cannot be stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on under a statute occasioned on account of accidental death. Compassionate appointment may have nexus with the death of an employee while in service but it is not necessary that it should have a correlation with the accidental death. An employee dies in harness even in normal course, due to illness and to maintain the family of the deceased one of the dependants may be entitled for compassionate appointment but that cannot be termed as “pecuniary advantag