IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 04.12.2025

Pronounced on: 18.12.2025

Uploaded on:- 18.12.2025

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ….Appellant

Vs.

NIRAMALA DEVI AND OTHERS …..Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3.

******

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the Award dated 03.04.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), in MACT Petition No. 131 of 2017 dated 27.11.2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), whereby the claim petition of the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein, was allowed and compensation of Rs. 29,47,366/- has been awarded to them. The 3 claimants are the widow and 2 minor children of

deceased Braham Parkash.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings as well as oral and documentary evidence adduced before it concluded

that Braham Parkash died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 23.08.2017 at about 11:15/11:30 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. HR-38R-6917 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No. 4. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 5 and insured by the appellant.

Accordingly, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in the following manner:-

S.No. Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs.)

1. Annual Income of Deceased Rs. 3,31,704/-

2. 15% Future Prospects Rs. 49,755/-

3. Net Income (3,31,704 + 49,755) Rs. 3,81,459/- 4. Deduction (1/3^rd) Rs. 1,27,153/- 5. Total Income (3,81,459 – 1,27,153) Rs. 2,54,306/-

6. Multiplier (11) (2,54,306 x 11) Rs. 27,97,366/-

7. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- 8. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-

9. Loss of consortium (40,000 x 3) Rs. 1,20,000/-

10. Total Compensation Rs. 29,47,366/-

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company assailed the impugned Award by contending that while computing the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the fact that respondent No. 1/widow of the deceased was receiving family pension after the death of her husband. It was submitted that the amount of pension which the widow was getting, need to be deducted while assessing the loss of dependency to the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3, thus the Award passed by the learned Tribunal be set aside.

ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS No. 1 TO 3.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants vehemently opposed the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company and submitted that the impugned Award does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. It was contended that the family pension being received by respondent No.1–widow of the deceased was a statutory and independent benefit accruing to her on account of the service rendered by the deceased during his lifetime and by any stretch of imagination was not to be treated as a pecuniary advantage flowing from the accident so as to be deducted while computing loss of dependency. Learned counsel further submitted that it was well settled by a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that amounts received by the dependents by way of family pension, provident fund, gratuity or other retiral benefits were not deductible from the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act, as such benefits were having no co-relation with the wrongful act of the tortfeasor. It was, therefore, argued that the plea raised by the appellant/Insurance Company was misconceived and contrary to settled legal principles, and the learned Tribunal thus rightly ignored the family pension while assessing the loss of dependency. Consequently, it was p