ORDER

This Misc. Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed against the Award dated 06.12.2019 passed by Xth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) in MACC No.642/2018.

2. Since the factum of accident & liability is not in dispute therefore it is suffice to mention here that in a head on collision which took place on 25/05/2018 between two vehicles, two persons, namely, Hariom Batham & Vimlesh Dixit lost their lives. Vimlesh Dixit was driving the car whereas Hariom Batham was sitting. The present appeal arises out of the Claim Petition filed by Lrs of Hariom Batham.

3. It is submitted by counsel for Insurance Company that ex gratia amount which has been received by the claimants from the department on account of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN death of deceased has not been adjusted, which is contrary to judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Krishna and others Vs. Tek Chand and others reported in 2024 ACJ 443. It is submitted that mother and father of deceased cannot be treated as dependents and therefore personal expenses should have been taken as 1/4. It is further submitted that Claims Tribunal has also directed that the income tax which was payable at the relevant time is also liable to be deducted and submitted that in fact the claims tribunal should not have left that discretion to the appellant. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has also imposed penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum in case if the Award amount is not paid within a period of two months. It is submitted that penal interest cannot be directed to be paid.

4. Per contra, appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for claimants. It is submitted that it is true that respondent No.8 is a pensioner and even if it is held that respondent No.8 is not dependent, then still respondent No.7 who is mother of deceased has to be treated as legal representative. So far as non-deduction of ex gratia amount as well as non-calculation of income tax as well as professional tax is concerned, it was fairly conceded by counsel for claimants that in fact the Claims Tribunal should have awarded the total recoverable amount after deducting the income tax as well as professional tax. Furthermore, in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshav Bahadur and others reported in 2004 ACJ 648, it is submitted that award of penal interest at the rate of 12% is erroneous.

5. Heard learned counsel for parties.

6. The claimant/Smt. Lakshmi Bai, in her evidence, has accepted that she has received Rs.50,000/- from the department by way of ex gratia compensation. The Supreme Court in the case of Krishna (supra) has held that amount paid by way of compassionate assistance to dependents of deceased government employee is Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN deductible while assessing the compensation for death of government employee in road accidents and has held as under:

“6. We find that the observations of this court in Sebastiani Lakra (supra) distinguishing the case of Shashi Sharma (supra) clearly apply to the case in hand. It is observed that the amount of Rs.31,37,665 was paid to the dependents of the deceased-employee who are the petitioners herein under the aforesaid Rules by way of compassionate assistance owing to the sudden death of the employee in harness for any reason whatsoever including as a result of a road accident. This is in order to compensate the loss of the bread earner of the family who dies in harness.

In the case of a motor vehicle accident, when negligence is proved, loss of dependency is compensated for the very same reason. In our view, there cannot be a duplication in payments or a windfall owing to a misfortune. In other words, on the death of the person in harness, owing to a road accident, the dependents of a deceased cannot be doubly benefited as opposed to those who are dependents of a deceased who dies owing to illness or any other reason und