Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Mrs. Meena Chaturvedi And Ors. on 29 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: III(2005)ACC711, 2006ACJ406, 122(2005)DLT75, 2005(83)DRJ309, 2005(4)ESC2408
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Badar Durrez Ahmed
JUDGMENT B.C.Patel, C.J.
1. This appeal preferred by the claimants against the decision rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House, New Delhi in Suit No. 94 of 1987 decided on 25.3.1991 under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is placed before this bench in view of the order made by learned Single Judge on 30.10.1992. According to learned Single Judge, there is a conflict of opinions in the views of different High Courts, which is apparent from the judgments of this Court, namely, (1) Nirmala Sharma and Ors. v. Raja Ram and another 1982 ACJ 143; (2) Delhi Transport Corporation v. Harbans Ram and Ors. 1983 ACJ 110 and (3) Satyawanti Pathak v. Hari Ram and Ors. 1983 ACJ 424.
2. The question raised before the Court was whether payment of benefit such as pension is required to be correspondingly reduced from the amount of total compensation payable or not? The judgments delivered by other High Courts, namely, Jammu and Kashmir, Gujarat and Bombay were also considered by the learned Single Judge.
3. On 17.3.1987 Col.Hem Parkash Chaturvedi was traveling with Mrs.Meena Chaturvedi, his wife, in a car No. DBA 8094 and was proceeding towards Punchkuian Road, New Delhi. The deceased Col.Hem Parkash Chaturvedi was on the steering and at about 7.30 p.m. when the car was near Sardar Patel Marg near Petrol Pump opposite Maurya Sheraton Hotel, a bus driven by the employee of Delhi Transport Corporation bearing No. DEP 8146 plying on route No. 790 came from the opposite direction at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and in the process of overtaking another bus, bus No. DEP 8146 of respondent driven by respondent' employee, came on the extreme wrong side on the road and struck against the right portion of the motor car driven by the deceased. The bus driver lost control of the vehicle. The bus was in a fast speed at the relevant time. As a result of the impact, the car was dragged to quite some distance with the result the bumper of the bus virtually pierced through the roof of the car, which resulted in death of Col. Hem Parkash Chaturvedi. Smt.Meena Chaturvedi, who was accompanying in the vehicle also sustained injuries.
4. At the time of death, the deceased was aged 46 years and was in the service of armed forces drawing salary of Rs.5,600/- per month besides other benefits and perquisites. He was enjoying good health and robust physique. He joined armed forces as a Commissioned Officer on or about 6.10.1963 and promoted to the rank of Captain in 1966 and was finally promoted as Lt.Col and Col. in 1983 and 1986.
5. The petition was filed for claiming the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- by the legal heirs of deceased Col.Hem Parkash Chaturvedi. The deceased was the only earning member in the family. Because of unfortunate incident, the careers and future of children were also adversely affected. On account of injuries sustained by Mrs.Meena Chaturvedi, a claim was lodged for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal awarded the compensation in the sum of Rs.5,04,000/- including Rs.15,000/- already awarded under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with costs and interest at the rate of 10% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of order. It is against the award made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Suit No. 94/1987, this appeal is preferred.
6. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the amount is not properly calculated for awarding the amount of compensation and multiplier of 12 given is also incorrect as the deceased was required to serve the armed forces for a period of six years only.
7. The Court on 30.10.1992 referred the matter to larger bench in view of the conflict of opinions. The question is no more debatable now in view of the decision of Apex Court in Helen C.Rebello and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another 1999 ACJ 10 where the question was whether the life insurance money of the deceased is to be deducted from the claimants compensation receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the case of Jaikumar Chhaganlal Patni v. Mary Jerome D'Souza 1978 ACJ 28, the trial court deducted the amount of life insurance received by the appellants to the tune of Rs.3,15,067.95 from the amount of compensation and held that the claimants would be entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.74,932.05. Two sets of decisions of various High Courts were noted. One set, holding that life insurance money received by the heirs, ought to be deducted and other set, holding not to deduct from the compensation payable under the aforesaid Act. The Apex Court in para 14 pointed out the English decision in Bradurn v. Great Western Rail Co. (1874-80) All ER 195 wherein it was held as under:-
"Where the plaintiff suffers personal injuries through the negligence of the defendant, the damages awarded are not to be reduced because the plaintiff has insured himself against accidental injury. In such a case the plaintiff is entitled to receive the amount payable by the insurer in addition to the damages recoverable from the defendant."
8. About pensionary benefits, the Court in para 17 referred to the case of Grand Trunk Railway of Canada v. Jennings (1888) 13 AC 800 and held as under:-
"at the common law, pecuniary benefits from insurance policies, whatever the source and pension schemes whether contributory or non-contributory, were deducted. The various English courts'decisions reveal the unsettled state of adjudication regarding the deductions from the compensation payable under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846. Various divergent opinions were expressed, some favorable to the claimant to exclude any sum payable on life insurance or pensions from deduction out of the compensation payable to the claimant and Ors. not to deduct till, as aforesaid, the matter was set at rest by various legislations culminating into the Fatal Accidents Act, 1959. Till before this, within the limitation of the restrictive language of the Act and in the absence of any motivating and guiding words under the statute the general principles under the common law were applied to ascertain the pecuniary loss and gain. Thus, the 'pecuniary advantage' from whatever source comes to the claimant by reason of the death, was interpreted giving its widest meaning. This amplitude of large sphere has been the cause of concern of the courts, legislature and the jurists and reference to the insurance, pension, gratuity, etc. whether it is a pecuniary gain deductible, if it is, whether one(tm)s conscience, equality and fairness are eroded, specially if it is applied with reference to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act? To salvage from this onslaught, some decisions declined to interpret for deduction and some other, even after holding deductible, expressed their conscience in favor of the sufferer. This we find both in the English decisions and the Indian decisions."
9. People invest through insurance policy for varieties of reasons. Similarly, people save money through pension schemes. In para 34, the Court pointed as under:-
"Thus, this has to be interpreted in the light of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is very clear, to which there could be no doubt that this Act delivers compensation to the claimant only on account of accidental injury or death, not on account of any other death. Thus, the pecuniary advantage accruing under this Act has to be deciphered, correlating with the accidental death. The compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is on account of the pecuniary loss to the claimant by accidental injury or death and not other forms of death. If there is natural death or death by suicide, serious illness, including even death by accident, through train, air flight not involving motor vehicle, would not be covered under the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the application of general principle under the common law of loss and gain for the computation of compensation under this Act must correlate to this type of injury or death viz., accidental. If the words 'pecuniary advantage' from whatever source are to be interpreted to mean any form of death under this Act it would dilute all possible benefits conferred on the claimant and would be contrary to the spirit of the law. If the 'pecuniary advantage' resulting from death means pecuniary advantage coming under all forms of death then it will include all the assets movable, immovable, shares, bank accounts, cash and every amount receivable under any contract. In other words, all heritable assets including what is willed by the deceased, etc. This would obliterate both, all possible conferment of economic security to the claimant by the deceased and the intentions of the legislature. By such an interpretation the tortfeasor in spite of his wrongful act or negligence, which contributes to the death, would have in many cases no liability or meager liability. In our considered opinion, the general principle of loss and gain takes colour of this statute, viz., the gain has to be interpreted which is as a result of the accidental death and the loss on account of the accidental death. Thus, under the present Act whatever pecuniary advantage is received by the claimant, from whatever source, would only mean which comes to the claimant on account of the accidental death and not other form of death. The constitution of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal itself under section 110 is as the section states:
"for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to"
10. In para 37, the Court pointed out about the family pension as under:-
'Similarly, family pension is also 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. No correlation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy amount is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured, if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums, in the case of death insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on insured death."
11. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation which is payable is the statutory while other benefits are contractual and the Court finally pointed out as under:-
"For all these considerations, we have no hesitation to hold that such High Courts were wrong in deducting the amount paid or payable under the life insurance by giving restricted meaning to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act basing mostly on the language of English statutes and not taking into consideration the changed language and intents of the legislature under various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939."
12. In case of N.Sivammal and Ors. v. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation and another 1985 ACJ 75, the Apex Court pointed out that the reduction of monetary benefit of pension from the amount of compensation is without justification.
13. Our attention was invited to different judgments to point out that the amount of gratuity could not have been deducted from the amount of compensation [Jahirabi and Ors. v. V.S.Siddalingappa and Ors. 2001 ACJ 1340 (Karnataka High Court)]. Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Savitri Devi and Ors. v. Pala Ram and Ors. 2000 ACJ 935 has taken the view that the pension/family pension payable to the widow could not be taken into consideration for reducing the dependency of the claimants. Similar is the view expressed by Karnataka High Court in Rajeswari and Ors. v. Divisional Controller, Bangalore Transort 2000 ACJ 732. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Fulmati Bai and Ors. v. Pancham Singh and Ors. 1999 ACJ 1283 has taken the similar view. In Revben and Ors. v. Kantibhai Narottambhai Gohil and another 1995 ACJ 548 the Court pointed out the settled position of law and principle in view of the decisions of Gujarat High Court in Prataprai Arjandas Dhameja v. Bhupatsing Gagji 1982 ACJ 316 and Arunaben v. Mehmoodbhai Imamali Kaji 1983 ACJ 409. The Court pointed out that on the basic principles, no deduction can be made in as much as the benefits which would accrue to the dependents of the deceased are benefits which would even otherwise have accrued to the claimants on the death of the deceased irrespective of how he had died.
14. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex Court, the question is no more res integra and the Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicles Act is required to consider the payment of damages/compensation to the person concerned on the basis of income and the loss that others would suffer irrespective of benefits, such as, insurance, provident fund, pension, etc.
15. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal considering the monthly salary and revised pay scales examined the matter and in the opinion of the Court, considering the age as also keeping in view the longevity of the life, multiplier of 12 has been applied. Nothing is pointed out as to that how the Court has committed an error in applying this principle.
16. In view of what is stated hereinabove, we find no merits in the appeal.
17. Dismissed.