The insurer in a proceedings for compensation before

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come up in this appeal

challenging the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal to

the claimants in the proceedings. The cross objection is by the

claimants challenging the inadequacy of the quantum of

compensation fixed for them by the Tribunal.

2.

One Sebastian, aged 59 years died in a motor

accident took place on 04.02.2013. His wife and two children

aged 27 and 24 respectively were the claimants in the

proceedings. A sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was the claim made in the

proceedings. As against the said claim, the Tribunal has granted

to the claimants a sum of Rs.14,93,000/- by way of compensation.

As noted, both the insurer as also the claimants are aggrieved by

the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. Hence this

appeal and cross objection.

Cross Objection No.20 of 2016 4

3.

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the

appellant as also the learned counsel for the claimants.

4.

It has come out that the deceased was a

pensioner working as the agent of M/s.SBI Life insurance. He was

earning a sum of Rs.15,350/- by way of monthly pension. In

addition, he was earning some amount by way of commission

from his avocation as the agent of M/s.SBI Life Insurance. In order

to prove the income earned by the deceased as the agent of

M/s.SBI Life Insurance, the claimants relied on Ext.A8 pass book

of the bank account wherein the commission received by the

deceased was being credited. The Tribunal noticed that the

deceased was earning on an average a sum of Rs.4,500/- by way

of commission from his avocation as the insurance agent. In the

circumstances, the Tribunal has computed compensation for loss

of dependency payable to the claimants reckoning the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/-.

5.

The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

contended that in so far as the wife of the deceased was receiving

almost half of the pension received by the deceased by way of

family pension on the death of the deceased, the entire amount of

Cross Objection No.20 of 2016 5

pension earned by the deceased ought not have been taken into

account by the Tribunal for the purpose of determining the

monthly income of the deceased for computing compensation for

loss of dependency. It was also contended by the learned Senior

Counsel that compensation granted by the Tribunal under the

heads funeral expenses and loss of consortium to the wife of the

deceased are excessive and against the ratio of the decision of

the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd V. Pranay

Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)]. Per contra, the learned counsel for

the claimants contended that the family pension earned by the

wife of the deceased is not liable to be deducted at all while

determining the income of the deceased to be reckoned for

computing the compensation for loss of dependency. According

to the learned counsel, in so far as the family pension was an

entitlement of the wife of the deceased even if the death was on

account of other reasons, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with

for having not taken into account the family pension received by

the wife of the deceased while determining the loss caused to the

family on account of the death of the deceased. It was also

pointed out by the learned counsel that Ext.A8 pass book would

Cross Objection No.20 of 2016 6

reveal that the deceased was receiving on an average

approximately Rs.6,750/- per month by way of commission from

his avocation as the insurance agent and the view taken by the

Tribunal that he was earning only approximately Rs.4,500/- per

month from the said avocation is incorrect. It was also contended

by the learned counsel that the compensation granted by the

Tribunal to the children of the deceased towards loss of love and

affection is too meager and liable to be revised.

6.

I have considered the contentions raised by the

learned counsel for the