In an appeal filed by the Reliance General Insurance Co. (Reliance) before the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, to challenge and award dated 10-08-2024 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (Tribunal), whereby compensation worth Rs. 42,54,900/- was awarded along with 7.5% interest per annum, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the family pension being received by the widow of the deceased was not eligible to be deducted while computing loss of dependency and thus, refused to interfere with the impugned judgment.
The wife, along with other claimants, filed a petition before the Tribunal seeking Rs. 1.85 Crores as compensation on account of the death of her husband. The deceased was traveling on a motorcycle when he was hit by a Swift car that was being driven rashly and negligently. As a result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries he suffered in the said accident.
The claimants contended that the offending vehicle was insured with Reliance at the material time of the accident, and that the deceased was an ex-serviceman of the Indian Army who was drawing a monthly pension of Rs. 32,000/-, along with Rs. 30,000/- from running a chemist shop. Reliance contended that at the time of the accident, the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license, in breach of the policy conditions, and that the amount demanded as compensation was exorbitant.
The Tribunal held that the driving license was valid on the date of the accident, and computed the income of the deceased at Rs. 30,316/- from pension and Rs. 6000/- from business. Thus, the annual income was accordingly taken as Rs. 4,35,792/-. A total compensation worth Rs. 42,54,900/- was awarded to the claimants.
Reliance preferred the present appeal, stating that the Tribunal failed to take into account that the widow of the deceased was receiving a family pension and that said amount ought to have been deducted while assessing the loss of dependency.
The Court perused the bank statement and stated that the Tribunal had rightly assessed the deceased’s pensionary income as Rs. 30,316/-. The Court noted that, although there was no documentary proof of the deceased’s income, a certificate issued by the J&K Pharmacy Council was placed on record, showing that the deceased was registered as a pharmacist. After taking note of certain other documents placed on record, the Court had no doubt that after retiring from the Army, the deceased was running a chemist shop.
Further, the Court said that the income assessed from the chemist shop could not be termed excessive, and that Reliance’s contention regarding the family pension was also without substance.
The Court referred to Helen C. Rebello & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 90 and various other cases, and stated that the family pension drawn by the wife after the death of her husband was not eligible to be deducted while computing the loss of dependency. Thus, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal’s award.
While dismissing the appeal, the Court directed that the awarded amount deposited in the Court be released in favour of the claimants as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the impugned award by the Tribunal.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Ms. Himani Uppal
For Respondents – Mr. Jatinder Singh
