Smt. Raveena and Others vs Jamuna Parsad and Others

M. Jeyapaul, J.—The widow and the minor daughter of the deceased arraying the mother of the deceased as one of the respondents preferred the present appeal challenging the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. Deceased Mahipal Yadav was in military service at the time when he met with an accident and died. The Tribunal has fixed his age between 27-30 years. The Tribunal having referred to the decision of this Court in Inder Singh and another vs. Ram Niwas and others, 2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 347 (P&H) and Bhakra Beas Management Board vs. Kanta Aggarwal and Ors., 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 733 (S.C.) deducted 30% of the loss of dependency towards the prospective family pension which would be received by the family members having applied the multiplier of ''16''.

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal has lost sight of the march of the law pronounced by the Hon''ble Apex Court while electing to deduct the family pension from the loss of dependency arrived by it. It is also his submission that by virtue of the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the Tribunal having assessed the age of the deceased as 30 years should have applied the multiplier of ''17'' to arrive at the loss of dependency.

Learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company, the contesting respondent in this case, would submit that the Tribunal has rightly deducted the future monetary gain the dependents would receive on account of the death of the deceased who was in military service. Therefore, it is his submission that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation in accordance with law.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Lal Dei and Others Vs. Himachal Road Transport, referring to the case in Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and Another, observed as follows:-

xxxxxx the family pension is earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. There is no co-relation between the two and therefore, the family pension amount paid to the family cannot deducted while calculating the compensation awarded tot he claimants.

It has been categorically held therein that inasmuch as the family members of the deceased are entitled to receive the pension earned by an employee for the sole benefit of his family, such a family pension cannot be deducted while calculating the compensation by the Tribunal.

Coming to the decision referred to by the Tribunal, I find that there is only a general observation in Bhakra Beas Management Board vs. Smt. Kanta Aggarwal and others, AIR 2008 SC 318 that the benefits which the claimant receives on account of the death or injury have to be duly considered while fixing the compensation by the Tribunal. The Court is bound to follow the decisions laid by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Lal Dei and Others Vs. Himachal Road Transport, as the specific question as to whether the family pension is deductible from the loss of dependency was squarely addressed and answered. Further in the face of the march of law pronounced by the Hon''ble Apex Court, the decision rendered by this Court in Inder Singh and another vs. Ram Niwas and others, 2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 347 (P&H) cannot be usefully relied upon by this Court.

As rightly pointed out by the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, the Tribunal has erred in deducting 30% of the last drawn salary of the deceased from that of loss of dependency arrived at Rs. 8663/-per month.

In the result, a sum of Rs. 17,67,252/-( Rs. 8663/-x12= Rs. 1,03,956/-x16= Rs. 17,67,252/-) towards loss of dependency and a sum of Rs. 10,000/-towards funeral expenses, transportation, loss of estate and loss of consortium are awarded. In aggregate, a sum of Rs. 17,77,252/-is awarded as compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till realization.

Out of the award amount, widow Raveena is entitled to a sum of Rs. 6 lacs, Smt. Chameli Devi, mother of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs. 4 lacs and the minor claimant is entitled to the remaining amount awarded by this Court. The amount awarded to the share of the minor shall be deposited in one of the nationalized banks at the choice of the Tribunal till she attains majority. With the above modification in the quantum of compensation, the appeal is allowed in part.