Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20829
Decided on: 21.05.2025
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Abhishek Gola, Adv., Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR, Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Rishabh Sahai Mathur, Adv., Mr. Shubhit Malhotra, Adv.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Assessment of income -- Deduction of family pension -- Since, the deceased was a pensioner and there was no evidence of any independent source of income, the High Court has rightly held that the amount being received by the widow as family pension had to be deducted.
(Para 9)
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 24.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O.No. 1633 of 2016 (O&M) by which the High Court has reduced the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ‘MACT’) vide award dated 30.11.2015, from Rs.22,23,612/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred Twelve) to Rs.7,69,952/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Two) maintaining the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the reduction has primarily been made on two grounds:-
(i) The income of the deceased, as computed by the MACT, was reduced from Rs.22,712/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Twelve) per month to Rs.6,500/-(Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred) per month; and
(ii) A deduction of 20% was made from the total compensation amount on account of contributory negligence attributed to the deceased.
5. It was submitted that the reduction in the compensation amount was on account of a deduction made from the income of the deceased, specifically, the pension he was receiving, by the amount being received by his wife as family pension.
6. It was further submitted that though the MACT had given a categorical finding that there was no contributory negligence, the High Court, while re-appreciating the evidence and without any sound reasoning, held the deceased partly liable by attributing 20% contributory negligence to him.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the High Court has rightly reduced the compensation on the ground that the deceased was not earning from any independent source by working and rather only earning a pension as a retired person, and part of his pension was being continued as family pension. The High Court, therefore, correctly considered the differential amount between the pension received by the deceased and the family pension received by the widow. It was further submitted that the High Court has rightly appreciated the evidence, particularly since the witnesses could not prove that the offending vehicle was coming on the wrong side and there being a head-on-collision, clearly there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, attributing 20% contributory negligence to the deceased was reasonable. He summed up his argument by submitting that the order of the High Court was sound and required no interference.
8. Having considered the rival contentions, we find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants to some extent.
9. The issue with regard to the reduction of the deceased’s income from Rs.22,712/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Twelve) per month to Rs.6,500/-(Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred) per month, upon scrutiny, appears to be justified. Since, the deceased was a pensioner and there was no evidence of any independent source of income, the High Court has rightly held that the amount being received by the widow as family pension had to be deducted. Accordingly, we find no ground to interfere with the income of the deceased as assessed by the High Court at Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred) per month.
10. However, as far as contributory negligence is concerned, we find that there was absolutely no ground to interfere with the findings of the MACT, which had held the driver of the offending vehicle wholly responsible for the accident.
11. Moving further, both the MACT and the High Court have awarded only 10% towards future prospects, which, in our view, requires interference.
12. Accordingly, the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court is modified by restoring the verdict of the MACT with regard to 100% negligence attributable to the driver of the offending vehicle, without 20% contributory negligence being attributed to the deceased. Further, the amount of future prospects is enhanced from 10% to 15%. The compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
13. However, the income of the deceased is maintained as Rs.6,500/-(Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred) per month.
14. At the request of the Court, learned counsel for the parties have worked out the computation. Upon recalculation, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.15,73,894/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Four). The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment, as indicated above.
15. Accordingly, the respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount before the MACT within two months from today. The MACT shall transfer the amount directly to the account of the appellants within two weeks thereafter, in terms of the apportionment, if any, made in the MACT’s order, after adjusting/deducting the amount already paid during the interregnum, if any.
16. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Appeal allowed.
********