HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4091/2018

Director State Insurance And Provident Fund Department, Vitta

Bhawan, D Block, Iind Floor, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Appellant

Versus

1.

Mukut Bihari Sharma S/o Suva Lal Sharma, Aged About

63 Years, R/o 15 Gopalbari, Near Navjyoti, School-I,

Namdev Colony, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2.

Pankaj Sharma S/o Mukut Bihari Sharma, Aged About 28

Years, R/o 15 Gopalbari, Near Navjyoti, School-I, Namdev

Colony, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3.

Anita Sharma D/o Mukut Bihari Sharma, Aged About 27

Years, R/o 15 Gopalbari, Near Navjyoti, School-I,

Namdev Colony, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4.

Mahender Singh Shakhawat S/o Pep Singh, Aged About

42 Years, R/o Chandwaji, Police Station Chandwaji, Jaipur,

Distt. Jaipur.

5.

Jaipur City Transport Limited, Through Dy. Commissioner,

Drts, Office R.k. Vyas Bhawan, J.d.a. J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary, Advocate for

Mr. Rohit Chaudhary, Advocate

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Satish Kumar Khandal, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Judgment

17/10/2022

Instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and

award dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Court of Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-Essential Commodities Act, Jaipur

Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in claim case

No.32/2012 by which the claim petition filed by the claimants was

(2 of 4)

[CMA-4091/2018]

allowed and the Insurance Company was directed to pay

compensation of Rs. 26,60,183/- to the claimants.

Learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of both

parties and documents available on record, deciding the claim

petition in favour of the claimants and awarded compensation as

indicated above.

Learned counsel for the appellants-Insurance Company

submits that after the death of the deceased, the daughter of the

deceased got compassionate appointment, hence, the claimants

were not entitled to get any sort of compensation. Counsel further

submits that under the conventional heads, an exorbitant amount

of Rs.1,20,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants and

in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi

reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, claimants are entitled to get

only Rs.70,000/- under this head. Therefore, he prayed that

interference of this Court is warranted.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance

Company submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the claim

petition has correctly taken into consideration all the factors while

calculating the award in the present case on the anvil of evidence

produced before it.

He further submits that getting compassionate appointment

after death of the deceased cannot be a ground to reject the claim

petition and the claimants are entitled to get compensation. In

support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment

of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. Vs.

Kishore Dan & Ors. In Civil Appeal No.5513 of 2012. Thus,

(3 of 4)

[CMA-4091/2018]

the judgment passed by the Tribunal does not call for any

interference by this Court.

I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone

through the impugned judgment and award as well as other

relevant documents available on record.

Getting compassionate appointment cannot be a ground to

deny compensation to the claimants of the deceased as the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (supra) has dealt

with the identical issue and held in Para No.20 as under:-

“20.The second issue is “whether the salary

receivable by the claimant on compassionate

appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor

Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage”

liable for deduction.” “Compassionate appointment”

can be one of