IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

......Appellant vs.

SEEMA RANI AND ORS.

......Respondents Reserved on:- 06.02.2026 Pronounced on:- 10.03.2026 Uploaded on:- 12.03.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Gurinder Singh Brar, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5.

None for respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (for short, 'the Tribunal’) wherein, the appellant/insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to the tune of Rs.85,27,827/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, on the ground of quantum of compensation to be on higher side.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned ₹

Tribunal committed an error in adding the family pension of 37888/–, received by the claimant–widow of deceased Budh Ram, while computing the loss of dependency. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5/claimants, however, contends that learned Tribunal has rightly added family pension while assessing dependency. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance.

6. So far as the contention raised by the appellant–Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal committed an error in adding the family ₹

pension of 37,888/–, received by the claimant–widow of deceased Budh Ram, while computing the loss of dependency is concerned, the same is devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected.

7. This Court, in FAO-4272-2018, titled as “ Chameli Devi and others Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others”, decided on 28.01.2026, has had the occasion to examine an identical question and has categorically held that family pension received by the dependents of deceased employee cannot be deducted from, nor excluded while assessing, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under:

“11. The pivotal question that thus arises for consideration is whether the family pension being received by the widow can be taken into account while computing the loss of dependency

12. This aspect was considered in the case of Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. & Anr. AIR, 1998 SC 3191 wherein it was observed that while calculating the compensation on account of death, the pecuniary advantage accruing under the Act, had to be deciphered by co-relating it with the accidental death. The compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is on account of the pecuniary loss to the claimant by accidental injury or death and not other forms of death. The pecuniary advantage cannot be interpreted and co-related to any other source/form of death such as natural death or death by suicide, serious illness, including even death by accident, through train, air flight not involving motor vehicle because the same would dilute all possible benefits conferred on the Claimant and would be contrary to the spirit of law. If the pecuniary advantage resulting from death was to include all forms of amounts whether by way of inheritance, succession or any other manner, then it could obliterate both, all possible conferment of economic security to the claimant by the deceased and the intention of the legislature. By such an inter