Compensation for motor vehicle accident claims must account for pre-existing compensations received under different statutes.

1. This appeal by the appellant insurance company is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.7.2005 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur in Compensation Case No. 116/75 of 2002-2005, whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,50,000 by way of compensation for the death of Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Deceased Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh, aged 42 years, was working in TISCO Ltd., Jamshedpur. On 26.10.2002 at about 10 p.m. while the deceased was returning home after duty on his motor cycle and when he reached near main road Bistupur, a truck bearing registration No. AP 05 - X 1087 dashed the motor cycle, due to which the deceased fell down on the road and the aforesaid truck ran over the deceased, who died on the spot. A police case was instituted for the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck. The claimants, who are widow and minor children, filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs. 14,50,700 on the ground that monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 11,700.

3. The respondent owner of the truck, in his written statement, pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company. The appellant insurance company filed written statement stating, inter alia, that the deceased was employee of TISCO Ltd. and died during course of his employment and as such the claimants must have received compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Hence, the claim application under Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal formulated the following issues for consideration:

(1) Whether claimants have any cause of action or right to sue and whether the case is maintainable?

(2) Whether the deceased died in an accident which took place on 26.10.2002 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP 05 - X 1087 (truck) on N Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur?

(3) Whether the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by which the vehicle has been insured under the insurer?

(4) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive the compensation amount and if so what should be the quantum of compensation?

(5) Whether the insurer of the vehicle is liable to indemnify the insured (owner) of the vehicle?

(6) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any relief or reliefs as claimed by them?

5. The Claims Tribunal held that the application under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimants is maintainable inasmuch as no application was filed by the claimants claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. On the issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, on the basis of income tax return, held that the annual income of the deceased was Rs. 1,33,000. The Tribunal, therefore, after deducting 1/3rd of the total compensation, assessed the compensation at Rs. 9,00,000.

6. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company, assailed the impugned award as contrary to the facts and evidence on record. Learned counsel submitted that claimants have received a sum of Rs. 3,56,980 under Workmen's Compensation Act in addition to Rs. 44,000. Learned counsel submitted that more than Rs. 4,00,000 have already been received by the claimants from the employer and, therefore, multiplier of 10 ought not to have been taken. According to the learned counsel, the amount of compensation assessed by the Claims Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants - respondents, submitted that no applicat