Reliance Gen Insurance Co Ltd v. Ishwanti & Ors.

1. Whether reporters of local papers rnay be allowed to see the judgment? 2.'Io bc referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? oRpER(ORAL): REVA KHETRAPAL, J. CM No. 21712011 Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions. 'the application stands disposed of. MAC APP. No.18/2011 Page I of[4] 2011:DHC:15099 MAC APP. No. 1.8i2011 and CM No. 216120L[1]

1. Issue notice. Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf ofthe respondents no.1 to 6.

2. The present appeal is being,taken up at a preliminary stage and being disposed of with the consent of the parties.

3. It is clear from the paper book that the appeal has been preferred against the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal without seeking the requisite permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Even otherwise, the grounds of appeal make out no case for reducing the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. The grounds are reproduced hereunder: - "a) Because the Tribunal below has failed to appreciate the law on the subject and evidence on record. b) Because the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that as per Sarla Varma case when dependency amount has been awarded, the compensation for love and affection cannot be awarded. c) Because the Ld. Tribunal has failed to take into account the family pension that will be paid to MAC APP. No.18/2011 Pnee 2 of[4] V the claimants and which has been admitted by the PW-f i.e. Respondent No.1 in her cross examination stating therein that she would get the same. d) Because the amount awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and is on very high side. e) Because the Tribunal below has failed to appreciate that just and fair compensation is to be awarded and claimants are not to be enriched or the award cannot be treated as windfall. D Because the Tribunal has erred in awarding huge sum which is not based on evidence or law. g) Because the award passed by the Tribunal is based on conjectures and surmises and does not appeal to a legal mind."

4. At the time of hearing of the appeal, from the aforesaid 'Grounds of Appeal', the only Ground pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant was Ground (c), inasmuch as the contention of the learned coirnsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have deducted the amount of family pension while cornputing the loss of dependency of the petitioners in the claim petition (the respondents No.1 to 6.herein). I am afraid there is no substance in this contention. The matter is no longer res integra. The Supreme MAC APP. No.18/2011 Pnge 3 of[4] Court in N. Sivammal and Ors. vs. Managing Director, Pandian Roaclways Corporation oncl Anr., 1985 ACJ 75 (SC)' has unequivocally held that the deduction of monetary benefit of pension from the amount of compensation is without justification. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, a Full Bench of this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation ys. Reena Cltaturvedi & Ors., 2006 ACI 406heldthat the law was well settled that: "The Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicles Act is required to consider the payment of damages/compensation to the person ' concerned on the basis of income and thc loss that othcrs would suffer irrespective of benefits, such as insurance, provident fund, pension, etc."

5. In view of thc aforesaid there is no merit in lhe appeal which is accordingly dismissed. fhe statutory deposit of { 25,000/- be refunded to the appellant insurance company.

6. MAC APP. No. 1812011 and CM No. 21612011 stands disposed of accordingly. January ztr20II sk L- brryr

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) MAC APP. No.18/2011 Pnee 4 of[4]