RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RAJNESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company disputing its liability to indemnify the respondents- claim on account of death of Vijay @ Vijay Kumar.

(2.) By the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short -the Tribunal-), dtd. 17/10/2014, compensation has been awarded to the respondents/claimants being dependents of the deceased, who was employee of Chandigarh Police. He died in an accident on the intervening night of 30 September/1/10/2013, due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, owner and driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., car bearing registration No. CH01-AM-9762. The deceased was 39 years of age at the time of accident. After deducting savings and income tax etc. from his salary, an amount of Rs.66,73,230.00along with interest was awarded as compensation. The offending vehicle in question being insured by the appellant/Insurance company, the liability was fastened jointly and severally on the respondents.

(3.) While assessing income of the deceased, apart from his gross salary of Rs.30817.00 per month, the monthly pension of Rs.9870.00being paid to him on account of his being an ex-serviceman, was also taken into account. Total income of the deceased was thus taken to be Rs.40687.00 per month. (Rs.30817.00+Rs.9870.00). Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the pension being drawn by the deceased as ex-serviceman is not to be taken into account to assess his total monthly income. It has been contended that the deceased's family, in any case, would continue getting pension despite his death. Therefore, the total income was wrongly calculated, which needs to be corrected by deducting the amount of pension. In support of his contention, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court dtd. 13/1/2018 passed in FAO No.10228 of 2014 titled as Charanjit Singh v. Harish Kumar Sachdeva and others. The question for consideration in Charanjit Singh case was as to whether the entire pension paid to the deceased was to be taken as income for computing loss of dependency, or the family pension paid to the widow was liable to be deducted and difference of pension and family pension was to be considered for computing loss of dependency. The Court held, in case family pension was not deducted out of the pension drawn by the deceased, it would amount to giving double benefit, i.e., benefit of pension drawn by the deceased as well as family pension available to the family.