Dismissed

Icici Lombard General Insurance Companly Ltd. v. Neelam Kumari and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Dec 2019FAO/795/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal by an insurance company. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that pension received by the deceased cannot be deducted from motor accident compensation payable to dependents.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Tribunal's award of compensation without deducting the deceased's pension.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Companly Ltd… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

FAO No. 795 of 2018 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 17. 12. 2019

¶3

I CI CI Lombar d Gener al I nsur ance Company Li mi t ed

¶4

…. . Appel l ant ver sus

¶5

Neel am Kumar i and ot her s

¶6

CORAM: - HON' BLE MRS. JUSTI CE ALKA SARI N

¶7

Pr esent : Mr . Raj bi r Si ngh, Advocat e f or t he appel l ant

¶8

Ms. Sumat i Jund, Advocat e f or r espondent Nos. 1 t o 3/ cl ai mant s

¶9

ALKA SARI N, J. :

¶10

The pr esent appeal has been f i l ed by t he i nsur ance company chal l engi ng t he awar d dat ed 18/ 09/ 2017 passed by t he Mot or Acci dent s Cl ai ms Tr i bunal , Rupnagar , al l owi ng t he cl ai m pet i t i on f i l ed by t he cl ai mant s/ r espondent Nos. 1 t o 3 her ei n.

¶11

The br i ef f act s necessar y t o be not i ced f or adj udi cat i on of t he pr esent appeal ar e t hat t he cl ai mant s Neel am Kumar i , wi dow and t he ot her cl ai mant s f i l ed t he cl ai m pet i t i on under sect i on 166 of t he Mot or Vehi cl es Act , 1988 f or compensat i on t o t he t une of ` 50 l akhs on account of deat h of Ram Kr i shan Si ngh. As per t he ver si on of t he cl ai mant s, on 01/ 07/ 2016, Ram Kr i shan Si ngh al ong wi t h cl ai mant No. 1 Neel am, Kumar i , i . e. , hi s wi f e was comi ng f r om Una t owar ds Shi wal i k Avenue Nangal on scoot er bear i ng r egi st r at i on No. HP- 20B–3720.

¶12

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.17 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

FAO- 795- 2018

¶14

- 2 -

¶15

Ram Kr i shan i s st at ed t o have been dr i vi ng t he scoot er wi t h pr oper car e and caut i on on t he l ef t si de of t he r oad. One Mahesh Kumar son of Jagdev Si ngh was f ol l owi ng t hem on a mot or cycl e bear i ng r egi st r at i on No. HP- 20- D- 2474. When t hey r eached near Shi wal i k Avenue on Una- Nangal r oad at about 11: 45 AM, Ram Kr i shan gave t he i ndi cat or of t he scoot er t o t ur n t owar ds Shi wal i k Avenue, j ust t hen Kapi l Chauhan, who was dr i vi ng a Toyot a Et i os car bear i ng r egi st r at i on No. CH- 01- AR6264 r ashl y and negl i gent l y and wi t hout bl owi ng any hor n st r uck agai nst t he scoot er of Ram Kr i shan Si ngh, as a r esul t of whi ch bot h t he r i der s of t he scoot er f el l on t he r oad and r ecei ved mul t i pl e i nj ur i es. Bot h t he r i der s of t he scoot er wer e t aken t o BBMB Hospi t al wher e t he doct or s decl ar ed Ram Kr i shan Si ngh as ‘ br ought dead’ . Hi s post mor t em was conduct ed on 01/ 07/ 2016 i t sel f . The acci dent was wi t nessed by Mahesh Kumar on whose st at ement FI R No. 100 dat ed 01/ 07/ 2016, under sect i ons 279, 337, 304- A, 427 I PC, was r egi st er ed at pol i ce st at i on Nangal . I t was st at ed i n t he cl ai m pet i t i on t hat t he deceased was an ex- ser vi ceman aged 69 year s and hi s mont hl y i ncome was `30, 000 on account of pensi on.

¶16

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i n t he cl ai m pet i t i on, cont est ed t he pet i t i on by f i l i ng t he wr i t t en st at ement pl eadi ng t hat t he acci dent occur r ed due t o t he negl i gence of Ram Kr i shan Si ngh, who was dr i vi ng t he scoot er i n a r ash and negl i gent manner . I t was f ur t her pl eaded t hat t he Toyot a Et i os car bear i ng r egi st r at i on No. CH- 01- AR- 6264 was owned by r espondent No. 1 and was i nsur ed wi t h r espondent No. 3 ( appel l ant her ei n) . I t was f ur t her st at ed t hat t he dr i ver of

¶17

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.17 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

FAO- 795- 2018

¶19

- 3 -

¶20

t he of f endi ng vehi cl e was hol di ng a val i d dr i vi ng l i cense at t he t i me of t he acci dent .

¶21

The i nsur ance company, appel l ant her ei n, al so cont est ed t he cl ai m on t he gr ound t hat t he acci dent di d not t ake pl ace and f ur t her t hat t he dr i ver of t he vehi cl e was not hol di ng a val i d l i cense at t he t i me of t he acci dent .

¶22

I have hear d l ear ned counsel f or t he par t i es and am of t he consi der ed opi ni on t hat t he pr esent appeal , whi ch has been pr ef er r ed by t he i nsur ance company, must f ai l .

¶23

Lear ned counsel appear i ng on behal f of t he i nsur ance company has assai l ed t he f i ndi ngs of t he Tr i bunal on t he gr ound t hat t he Tr i bunal er r ed i n not deduct i ng t he amount bei ng r ecei ved as pensi on by t he deceased f r om t he dependency of t he cl ai mant s. Thi s was t he onl y ar gument ur ged by t he counsel f or t he appel l ant i n t he pr esent appeal bef or e t hi s Cour t . He has r el i ed upon a j udgment of t he Apex Cour t i n t he case of Rel i ance Gener al I nsur ance Co. Lt d. vs. Shashi Shar ma & Or s. , 2016( 9) SCC 627 , t o suppor t hi s ar gument .

¶24

Thei r Lor dshi ps of t he Apex Cour t i n t he case of Sebast i ani Lakr a & Or s . vs . Nat i onal I nsur ance Company Lt d. & Anr . , r epor t ed as 2018 AI R ( SC) 5034 , whi l e deci di ng a mat t er concer ni ng adj ust ment of pecuni ar y advant ages, r ecei ved by hei r s, i n compensat i on, have hel d as under : -

¶25

“ 12. The l aw i s wel l set t l ed t hat deduct i ons cannot be al l owed f r om t he amount of compensat i on ei t her on account of i nsur ance, or on account of pensi onar y benef i t s or gr at ui t y or gr ant of empl oyment t o a ki n of t he deceased. The mai n r eason i s t hat al l t hese amount s ar e ear ned by t he deceased on account of cont r act ual r el at i ons

¶26

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.17 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

FAO- 795- 2018

¶28

- 4 -

¶29

ent er ed i nt o by hi m wi t h ot her s. I t cannot be sai d t hat t hese amount s accr ued t o t he dependent s or t he l egal hei r s of t he deceased on account of hi s deat h i n a mot or vehi cl e acci dent . The cl ai mant s/ dependent s ar e ent i t l ed t o ‘ j ust compensat i on’ under t he Mot or Vehi cl es Act as a r esul t of t he deat h of t he deceased i n a mot or vehi cl e acci dent . Ther ef or e, t he nat ur al cor ol l ar y i s t hat t he advant age whi ch accr ues t o t he est at e of t he deceased or t o hi s dependent s as a r esul t of some cont r act or act whi ch t he deceased per f or med i n hi s l i f e t i me cannot be sai d t o be t he out come or r esul t of t he deat h of t he deceased even t hough t hese amount s may go i nt o t he hands of t he dependent s onl y af t er hi s deat h.

¶30

The j udgment r el i ed upon by l ear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant i s not appl i cabl e t o t he f act s of t he pr esent case, i nasmuch as, t hei r Lor dshi ps of t he Apex Cour t i n t he sai d case wer e deal i ng wi t h a case under t he Har yana Compassi onat e Assi st ance t o t he Dependent s of t he Deceased Gover nment Empl oyees Rul es, 2006. I n t he Sebast i ani Lakr a’ s case ( supr a) , t he Apex Cour t al so consi der ed t he r at i o of t he deci si on r ender ed i n t he case of Shashi Shar ma ( supr a) , and hel d as under : -

¶31

“ 10. I n Shashi Shar ma case ( supr a) t hi s Cour t was deal i ng wi t h t he payment s made t o t he l egal hei r s of t he deceased i n t er ms of Rul e 5 ( 1) of t he Har yana Compassi onat e Assi st ance t o t he Dependant s of Deceased Gover nment Empl oyees Rul es, 2006 ( f or shor t ‘ t he sai d Rul es’ ) . Under Rul e 5 of t he sai d Rul es on t he deat h of a Gover nment empl oyee, t he f ami l y woul d cont i nue t o r ecei ve as f i nanci al assi st ance a sum equal t o t he pay and ot her al l owances t hat was l ast dr awn by t he deceased empl oyee f or per i ods set out i n t he Rul es and af t er t he sai d per i od t he f ami l y was ent i t l ed t o r ecei ve f ami l y pensi on. The f ami l y was al so ent i t l ed t o r et ai n t he Gover nment accommodat i on f or a per i od of one year i n addi t i on t o payment of L 25, 000/ - as ex gr at i a. I n t hi s case, t he t hr ee- Judge Bench adver t ed t o t he pr i nci pl es l ai d down i n Hel en C. Rebel l o case ( supr a) , f ol l owed i n Pat r i ci a Jean Mahaj an case ( supr a) , and came t o t he concl usi on

¶32

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.17 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

FAO- 795- 2018

¶34

- 5 -

¶35

t hat t he deci si on i n Vi mal Kanwar case ( supr a) di d not t ake a vi ew cont r ar y t o Hel en C. Rebel l o or Pat r i ci a Jean Mahaj an case ( supr a) . The f ol l owi ng obser vat i ons ar e r el evant :

¶36

" 15. The pr i nci pl e expounded i n t hi s deci si on i n Hel en C. Rebel l o case t hat t he appl i cat i on of gener al pr i nci pl es under t he common l aw t o est i mat e damages cannot be i nvoked f or comput i ng compensat i on under t he Mot or Vehi cl es Act . Fur t her , t he " pecuni ar y advant age" f r om what ever sour ce must cor r el at e t o t he i nj ur y or deat h caused on account of mot or acci dent . The vi ew so t aken i s t he cor r ect anal ysi s and i nt er pr et at i on of t he r el evant pr ovi si ons of t he Mot or Vehi cl es Act of 1939, and must appl y pr opr i o vi gor e t o t he cor r espondi ng pr ovi si ons of t he Mot or Vehi cl es Act , 1988. Thi s pr i nci pl e has been r est at ed i n t he subsequent deci si on of t he t wo- Judge Bench i n Pat r i ci a Jean Mahaj an case, t o r ej ect t he ar gument of t he I nsur ance Company t o deduct t he amount r ecei vabl e by t he dependant s of t he deceased by way of " soci al secur i t y compensat i on" and " l i f e i nsur ance pol i cy. "

¶37

However , whi l e deal i ng wi t h t he scheme t he Cour t hel d t hat appl yi ng a har moni ous appr oach and t o det er mi ne a j ust compensat i on payabl e under t he Mot or Vehi cl es Act i t woul d be appr opr i at e t o excl ude t he amount r ecei ved under t he sai d Rul es under t he Head of ‘ Pay and Ot her Al l owances’ l ast dr awn by t he empl oyee. We may not e t hat on pr i nci pl e t hi s Cour t has not di sagr eed wi t h t he pr oposi t i on l ai d down i n Hel en C. Rebel l o or i n Pat r i ci a Jean Mahaj an case ( supr a) , but whi l e ar r i vi ng at a j ust compensat i on, i t had or der ed t he deduct i on of t he sal ar y, r ecei ved under t he st at ut or y r ul es. ”

¶38

I n vi ew of t he l aw l ai d down by t he Apex Cour t , t he ar gument r ai sed by t he appel l ant t hat t he amount r ecei vabl e under t he f ami l y pensi on i s t o be deduct ed f r om t he amount of dependency payabl e t o t he cl ai mant s deser ves t o be r ej ect ed.

¶39