Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The learned counsel for the Claimant argues that the judgment of this Court in Jaswant Kaur Sethi (supra) and other decisions referred to earlier require reconsideration as the judgment in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr., (1999)1 SCC 90 and Patricia Jean Mahajan(supra) were not rightly construed. It is urged that in Helen C. Rebello(supra) and Patricia Jean Mahajan(supra), the Supreme Court held that if any money comes to the victim under a contract of insurance, it would be unjust and unreasonable to withhold that money. It was observed that the benefit of the payment of premium could not enure for the benefit of the tortfeasor.

11. The learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company refers to the report of the Supreme Court in Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors v. Mansaram Nainwal, AIR 2006 SC 2840 in support of his contention that reliance on a decision without looking into the factual background of the case before it is impermissible. A decision is precedent on its own fact. Each case presents its own features. It is not everything said by a Judge while giving a judgment that constitutes a precedent. It is contended that the Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello(supra) and Patricia Jean Mahajan (supra) made a general reference about balancing on the one hand the loss to the Claimants of the future pecuniary benefits and on the other with pecuniary advantages from whatever source come to them by reason of death is not the ratio as the Court was concerned with the payment received from the Life Insurance Corporation (in Helen C. Rebello (supra) and payments under the social security scheme in Patricia Jean Mahajan(supra) which were held to be not deductible. The learned counsel for the Claimant places reliance on paras 18, 19 and 20 of the report in Helen C. Rebello (supra), which are extracted hereunder:

14. In Helen C. Rebello (supra), the question before the Supreme Court was whether the amount received under Life Insurance Policy was liable to be deducted on the principle of balancing the loss and gain. The Supreme Court referred to the Law of Torts by Fleming and differentiated between the amount received under the Life Insurance Policy and an accident insurance policy. Amount received under Life Insurance Policy is payable to legal representatives or to the policy holder if he survives the term of the policy irrespective of the death or even because of death. It was, thus held that the payment received under the Life Insurance Policy was not deductible whereas the payment received under the personal accident insurance was deductible. The reason was that in case of payment received under the accident insurance policy, the amount was receivable only on account of death in an accident and not otherwise, whereas in case of Life Insurance Policy, the amount was receivable irrespective of the death. Thus, the fact that the payment was made under independent contract of insurance was not of much import. Moreover, the use of the word "just" in Section 168 of the Act, confers wider discretion to the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, has to see that the compensation awarded is neither niggardly nor a source of profit. Paras 26, 27 and 28 of the report in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr., (1999)1 SCC 90 is extracted hereunder:

"34. Shri P.P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the scope of the provisions relating to award of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is wider as compared to the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Acts. It is further indicated that Gobald case is a case under the Fatal Accidents Acts. For the above contention he has relied upon the observation made in Rebello case. It has also been submitted that only such benefits, which accrued to the claimants by reason of death, occurred due to an accident and not otherwise, can be deducted. Apart from drawing a distinction between the scope of provisions of the two Acts, namely, the Motor Vehicles Act and the Fatal Accidents Act, this Court in Helen Rebello case accepted the argument that the amount of insurance policies would be payable to the insured, the death may be accidental or otherwise, and even where the death may not occur the amount will be payable on its maturity. The insured chooses to have insurance policy and he keeps on paying the premium for the same, during all the time till maturity or his death. It has been held that such a pecuniary benefit by reason of death would not be such as may be deductible from the amount of compensation.