AO/355/2015 of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Janki Devi AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal from Order No. 355/2015

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

…. Appellant

Versus

Smt. Janki Devi & Others

.… Respondents

Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocate, for the claimant/respondent no. 1. Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for the owner/respondent no. 2. Mr. Neeraj Upreti, Advocate, for the driver/respondent no. 3.

July 5th, 2017

Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

This Court has rendered hearing to learned Counsels of all concerned today itself on the merits of the controversy.

The judgment and order dated 6.4.2015 has been assailed by way of preferring this appeal wherein the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,94,116/- along with interest @ 9 per cent per annum with effect from the date of presentation of the petition on 19.3.2013 till the actual payment.

It transpires that the accident occurred on 21.12.2011 at 9.30 AM within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Someshwar, District Almora when medium goods vehicle/truck no. UK-01-CA-0309 dashed Mr. Girish Chandra Pandey, aged 54 years, causing his death on the spot. The claim petition no. 6/2013 was instituted by his wife Smt. Janki Devi which has culminated into granting of compensation, as indicated above.

Learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company has agitated the quantum of the award on the ground that the deceased Girish Chandra Pandey was gardener in Almora Jal Sansthan and his total salary in the

month of November 2011, after deductions, was Rs. 13,257/-. His wife certainly must have got the appointment under the dying in harness rules, apart from other benefits like group insurance, gratuity, etc. Besides, since she was the alone dependent, hence the Tribunal has committed error by deducting only 1/3[rd] from the total amount of compensation towards the personal expenses of the deceased.

I think the similar controversy was dealt with by this Court in AO No. 383/2011, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shakun Chitra & Others, decided on 22.7.2016, wherein this Court has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Kanta Aggarwal & Others, 2008 (3)T.A.C. 661. It was held in this case by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the High Court lost sight of the fact that benefits which the claimant receives on account of death or injury have to be duly considered while fixing compensation. In that case, rupees five lakhs was deposited towards the compensation and looking to the 14 years old matter, the Hon. Apex Court did not find it proper to send it back for re-trial and disposed of the matter finally directing to make the payment of rupees five lakhs only against the award of Rs. 8,48,160/-.

Dealing with the same controversy in an another case Ramprasad Balmiki v. Anil Kumar Jain & Others, reported in 2008 (4) T.A.C. 385, the Hon. Apex Court has held that even the amount of pension would have mitigated the quantum of damages and same was required to be taken into consideration.

In the present case as well, the deceased was gardener in the government organisation. Hence in all probabilities, his sole dependant, the wife, should have got

the appointment on compassionate ground and the same has not been denied on the record. It can be assumed that this claimant widow must have been getting the pension, besides the job. Other benefits like gratuity, insurance, etc. would also be on the score while evaluating such compensation because it has been said time and again in the many judgments of the Hon. Apex Courts and the various High Courts that death of the earning member of family can never be taken as windfall for other members of the family and the amount so evaluated should not be taken as largesse in such matters. The whole object behind this social legislation is to save the dependants from indigence or from being on the road in the absence of bread earner.

This widow, the sole dependant of the deceased Girish Chandra Pandey, is further in the privileged position that she is alone in receiving all the benefits on account of death of her husband. Visualising that she must have got enough, I struck down the whole quantum as awarded by the Tribunal and reduce it to rupees five lakhs only as lump sum compensation, which has already been deposited by the appellant insurance company and the same shall be released to her as and when applied for. Registry shall remit the amount of compulsory statutory deposit along with the interest accrued on it to the Tribunal concerned.

Impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent indicated above and the appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms. Let the LCR be sent back.

Prabodh

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)