- (1.) This appeal relates to a grievance of the claimants with regard to inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The victim was a Central Government employee. He died at the age of 51 years in an accident. The Tribunal awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 3.5 lakhs less the amount received on account of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, in the order in portion different amount was written. We take it as a clerical and/or typographical mistake.
(2.) On perusal of the judgment we find that the Tribunal found favour with the argument of the Insurance Company that the widow was expecting to get Rs. 1 lakh out of the said accident. The Tribunal also considered the fact that the victim's daughter would get compassionate appointment. Taking a sum total the amount was awarded as referred to above.
(3.) Mr. Krishanu Banik, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was payable by the insurer of the vehicle, who indemnifies the owner as also the third party in case of eventuality of an accident causing injury and/or casualty to the victim. Mr. Banik relies on the Apex Court decision in the case of Helen C. Rebello Vs. Maharashtra S.R.T.C., 1998 AIR(SC) 3191. The relevant passages as relied upon by Mr. Banik is quoted below :- "37. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. The amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and, is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. 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 tortfeasor for his negligence on account of accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act, he receives without any contribution. As we have said the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** In the present case, two interpretations have given of his statute, evidenced by two distinct sets of decisions of the various High Courts. We have no hesitation to conclude that the set of decisions, which applied the principle of no deduction of the life insurance amount should be accepted and the other set, which interpreted to deduct, is to be rejected. 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 making into consideration the changed language and intends of the legislature under various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.";