Nisha Devi and Others vs Sonaina Garg and Another

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirmaur at Nahan dated 8.7.2005 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant was dismissed.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the present appellants being the legal heirs of deceased Pawan Singh filed a petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirmaur at Nahan u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was alleged in the said petition that the deceased was driving truck No. HR-58-3353 and the deceased lost control of the truck as a result of which the same fell into a gorge. The deceased received multiple injuries and died as a result thereof. This claim petition was contested by the owner as well as the Insurance Company. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition on the ground that such a petition was not maintainable since the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased itself. When the matter was being heard Shri K.S.Kanwar relied upon the judgement of this Court in Kokla Devi Vs. Chet Ram and Another, and contended that the finding of the learned Tribunal is against the law laid down by this Court.

Since the issues involved were highly debateable, I had impressed upon the parties to settle the matter amicably. Admittedly, the claimant was a workman. This fact was not disputed either by the owner or by the Insurance Company. The owner had stated that the pay of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/-. Therefore, taking the pay at Rs. 3,000/- and the age of the deceased at 26 years, which was admitted by all parties, I had proposed that the parties should compromise the matter for a sum of Rs. 3,22,920/- as payable under the Workmen''s Compensation Act without forcing the claimants to another round of litigation which would not be in their benefit.

The parties have agreed to the suggestion of the Court. Appellants 1 and 3 are present in Court. As far as appellant No. 4 is concerned he is a retired pensioner and could not have been dependent on the deceased and therefore, no amount would be payable to him.

An application under Order 32 Rule 7 CPC being CMP No. 23 of 2009 has been filed seeking leave of the Court to compromise the matter, since claimant No. 2 is a minor. As detailed above, there are many arguable points involved in the appeal : Whether a claim petition u/s 163 is maintainable by the legal heirs of a driver who himself is guilty of negligence is one question to be decided? Whether a claim petition u/s 163-A is maintainable in a case where the annual income of the deceased is alleged to be more than Rs. 40,000/- is a debateable point. Therefore, in my opinion, the compromise for payment of compensation in terms of the Workmen''s Compensation Act would be just and reasonable compensation and the settlement is definitely for the benefit of the claimants.

Therefore, in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, I set-aside the award of the learned Tribunal and the Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,22,920/- in full and final settlement of all claims of the appellants-respondents in respect of the death of the deceased Pawan Singh in the accident in question. Shri Balbir Singh, Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company is present in Court and states that a cheque for the sum of Rs. 3,22,920/- will be deposited in the Registry within two days from today.

The amount of compensation is apportioned as follows:

Ms. Nisha Devi widow Rs. 1,52,920/-

Ms. Kajal (minor) daughter Rs. 1,20,000/-

Smt. Nirmala Devi mother Rs. 50,000/- .

The amount falling to the share of the minor shall be kept in separate fixed deposit as per her share for a period co-terminus with her attaining the age of majority. Out of the amount held payable to the widow (Nisha Devi), a sum of Rs. 30,000/- only shall be released in her favour by remitting it to her bank account. The balance amount alongwith interest accrued upto date shall be re-invested in a fixed deposit in her name for a period of three years at the first instance. The amount held payable to the mother (Nirmala Devi) i.e. a sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be released in her favour by remitting it to her bank account. The claimants shall not be entitled to raise any loan or create any lien on the FDRs. They cannot withdraw any amount from the FDRs without the leave of this Court.

Out of the amount so kept in fixed deposits, the interest accruing henceforth on the fixed deposits of the minor and the widow (Nisha Devi) shall be released in favour of Nisha Devi on quarterly basis. She shall use this amount for meeting the day to day expenses and also for the education and maintenance of the minor child. Learned Counsel for the claimants is directed to supply the birth certificate of the minor child and the bank accounts of the widow and mother to the Registry of this Court within six weeks from today.

At the end, I must place on record my appreciation for the positive response given by both the parties to the suggestion of this Court.

The appeal and CMP No. 23 of 2009 are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.