Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Urmila Devi and Others

Amitava Lala, J.—The appeal is arising out of the judgment and order dated 9th March, 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Chandauli, awarding compensation of Rs. 13,77,000., The income of the deceased, who was a teacher in a Government School. The Tribunal has awarded just compensation on the basis of income by following the principles of Second Schedule. Hence, the dispute is only with regard to the quantum.

The appellant contends that the claimant/respondent No. 1 wife of the deceased is getting pension of Rs. 4,300 per month. She has also been engaged on the post of clerk, therefore, as last dependency of the claimant/respondent upon income of the deceased has wrongly been calculated by the Tribunal. In fact, she has not suffered any loss of earning on account of untimely death of the deceased.

In support of such contention, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant''s insurance company relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Smt. Kanta Aggarwal and Others, to establish that the claimants cannot get two benefits of accidental compensation at a time. The case before the Supreme Court was filed on behalf of the concerned appellant management Board therein saying that they have received motor accident compensation, therefore, an appropriate deduction is to be made in computing the compensation. The claimant was getting salary of about Rs. 4,700 per month, therefore, she was not entitled to compassionate appointment. The Supreme Court in dealing with such matter relied upon a judgment in Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and Another, and followed the observation of such judgment therein. Even in such judgment, which has been followed very important aspect has been considered, which is as below.

This, of course, is a pecuniary gain but how this is equitable or could be balanced out of the amount to be received as compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no correlation between the two amounts. Not even remotely. How can an amount of loss and gain of one contract be made applicable to the loss and gain of another contract. Similarly, how an amount receivable under the statute has any correlation with an amount earned by an individual. Principle of loss and gain has to be on the same plane within the same sphere, of course, subject to the contract to the contrary of any provision of law.

(Emphasis applied)

Therefore, sitting in the appellate jurisdiction of a beneficial piece of legislation we cannot run contrary to the intention of the Legislature. Though, the Supreme Court in the referred judgment has indicated that the High Court has lost sight of the facts of such benefits but in arriving at a conclusion allowed the entire sum deposited with the Court be released in favour of the claimants, considering the same as just and proper.

In such cases, the awarded amount of compensation was Rs. 8,48,160 and a sum of Rs. five lacs was directed to be deposited by the Court''s order dated 1.11.2004. The Supreme Court passed the order on 7th July, 2008, therefore, by the passage of time, the deposited amount accrued interest, which might be around the amount, which was originally granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, such judgment as passed on factual aspect therein but not laid down any ratio. On the other hand, the judgment which has been referred by the Supreme Court is running contrary to the view point of the appellant herein.

Therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to admit the appeal and hence the appeal is dismissed without imposing any cost.

Incidentally, the appellant-insurance company prayed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000 made before this Court for preferring this appeal be remitted back to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as possible in order to adjust the same with the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants, however, such prayer is allowed.

Uma Nath Singh, J.

I agree.