MEENA DEVI Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The points for consideration in this appeal are - (1) whether Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) was justified in allowing deduction on account of lump sum payment of compensation? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not awarding interest on the awarded amount from the date of petition till realisation? (3) Whether the liability of the Insurance Company was limited? (4) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper?

(2.) In order to answer these questions, we may have glance to the relevant facts which are necessary for the determination of these questions. The deceased Ram Gopal aged 35 years was going on his cycle on 25th March,1980 at 8.40 PM when a truck bearing No.RRK-2964 came in a fast speed driven rashly and negligently by its Driver hit the cycle driven by Ram Gopal. Deceased Ram Gopal suffered injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same. He was Halvai by profession. His monthly income was Rs.600.00 from this business. Deceased Ram Gopal left behind his widow, minor daughter and four minor sons. Having lost the bread earner of the family, the legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act) claiming a compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000.00 . By the impugned award the Tribunal worked out the dependency loss at Rs.57,600.00 and then order deduction at the rate of 15% on account of lump sum payment. Thus awarded a sum of Rs.48,960.00 . The Tribunal also held that liability of the Insurance Company, as per the policy, was limited to the extent of Rs.50,000.00 .

(3.) At the outset it must be mentioned that deduction on account of the lump sum payment is not permissible. It is now settled principle of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hardeo Kaur & ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & anr., 1992 0 ACJ 300 that deduction on account of lump sum payment is not justified. While setting aside such a direction, the Apex Court observed that "with the value of rupee dwindling due to high rate of inflation, there is no justification for making deductions on account of lump sum payment". Similar view was expressed by this Court in this Court in Chameli Wati & Ors. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation & ors., 1984 ACJ page 134 wherein it was held that no deduction on such account is called for and that by permitting this deduction for the benefit of the respondent who had been found negligent and responsible for causing death would be in fact to reward him for his negligence. Similar view was expressed in the case of Rukmani Devi & Ors. V. Om Prakash & Ors., 1991 ACJ page 3, General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors., 1994 ACJ page 1, Dharam Singh & Anr. Vs. Parveen Sehgal & Ors., 1992 ACJ page 1067. In view of the law laid down by this Court as well as by Apex Court, the deduction allowed by the Tribunal at the rate of 15% is hereby set aside.