- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kusumlata Trivedi And Others v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award dated 23.2.1981 passed by the Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna, in Claim Case No. 113 of 1980, which dismissed the entire claim petition of the appellant-claimants.
The appellants had filed a claim under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 seeking Rs. 1,43,968 as compensation for the death of Narain Prasad Trivedi. The deceased, aged 54 at the time of the accident on 15.10.1979, was travelling in vehicle No. MPZ 9230 driven by respondent No. 3 while on duty as Acting Deputy Director, Department of Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants alleged rash and negligent driving by the driver employed by respondent No. 1, resulting in the vehicle overturning and the immediate death of the deceased.
The Claims Tribunal found the driver negligent, assessed that the deceased would have survived for 16 more years, and computed compensation at Rs. 18,000, but dismissed the claim on the ground that the appellants had already received ex gratia payments and family benefit amounts and that gratuity and other pensionary benefits remained payable. The appellants appealed against this dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Claims Tribunal was correct in deducting amounts such as pension, gratuity, provident fund and family pension from the total compensation assessed under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Whether the Claims Tribunal correctly assessed the quantum of compensation — including the appropriate monthly dependency, multiplier and consideration of prospective promotion — and whether any compensation should have been awarded to the appellants.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The deceased would have survived up to 75 years of age; the Tribunal erred in assuming fewer years.
- The Tribunal wrongly deducted amounts for pension, gratuity, provident fund and family pension from the compensation.
- The Tribunal ignored the possibility of future promotion of the deceased and erred in applying an unjust multiplier.
- On the facts and law the appellants were entitled to compensation and the Tribunal was wrong in awarding nothing to them.
Respondent's Arguments
- The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal.
- Respondents admitted that the deceased was in service and on duty and that he was earning, but denied that the vehicle was driven at a high speed (i.e., disputed the allegation of rash and negligent driving).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kashiram Mathur v. Rajendra Singh 1983 ACJ 152 (MP | The Full Bench held that amounts of insurance, provident fund, gratuity and family pension are not deductible from the total amount of compensation assessed under the provisions of Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act; only ex gratia payments are deductible. | The Court applied this principle to conclude that the Claims Tribunal was not entitled to deduct pensionary and similar benefits from compensation, thereby justifying a higher award to the claimants. |
| Malti v. Sunder Transport Co. 1988 MPLJ 213 | Decision of the Full Bench in Kashiram Mathur was followed by the Division Bench in this case (i.e., the non-deduction principle was adhered to). | The Court noted that the Malti decision followed the Full Bench and treated it as supporting the proposition that provident fund, gratuity and family pension should not be deducted from compensation. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first framed the threshold question whether the Claims Tribunal was correct in deducting pensionary and related benefits from the compensation. It referred to the Full Bench decision in Kashiram Mathur v. Rajendra Singh, which held that insurance, provident fund, gratuity and family pension are not deductible from compensation assessed under Section 110-B and that only ex gratia payments are deductible. The Court noted that this decision was followed by the Division Bench in Malti v. Sunder Transport Co.
The Claims Tribunal had found that the deceased was drawing Rs. 1,650 per month (subject to tax and G.P.F. deductions), and had proceeded on the basis that at least Rs. 1,200 or Rs. 1,400 per month would be his income and that he must have been paying about Rs. 700 per month to the claimants. The Tribunal also considered the possibility of earlier accidental death and made a low aggregate award of Rs. 18,000 but then denied net relief because of various payments said to have been received by the appellants and because gratuity and pensionary benefits remained payable.
Applying the Full Bench principle (that pensionary and similar amounts are not deductible), the Court accepted the figure of Rs. 700 per month as the deceased's contribution to his dependants. It calculated the annual dependency as Rs. 8,400 and, after applying a multiplier of 15, arrived at a total compensation of Rs. 1,26,000. For interest, the Court determined that 6% per annum from the date of application until realization was just and proper in the present case.
Holding and Implications
Appeal allowed; impugned award set aside.
Direct effects on the parties:
- The impugned award dated 23.2.1981 is set aside.
- The appellant-claimants are ordered to be paid Rs. 1,26,000 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application until realization.
- Each party is to bear its own costs throughout.
On broader implications: the Court applied and relied on existing precedents (Kashiram Mathur and Malti) to hold that pensionary benefits, gratuity, provident fund and the like are not to be deducted from compensation assessed under the relevant provisions; the opinion does not announce a new legal principle beyond following those precedents.
1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the award dated 23.2.1981 passed by Mr. M.S. Quraishi, Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna, in Claim Case No. 113 of 1980 dismissing the whole of the claim petition of the appellant-claimants.
2. The appellant-claimants had filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and prayed for compensation of Rs. 1,43,968/-. Their case was that the deceased Narain Prasad Trivedi, the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3, on 13.10.1979 proceeded on tour to Rewa and therefrom to Maihar in connection with the selection and inspection of the land for establishing Sanskrit Research Foundation. On 15.10.1979, he came to Maihar by vehicle No. MPZ 9230 and went to Sharda Mai Temple for selection and inspection of the land. The said vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 3, who was in service of respondent No. 1. On account of rash and negligent driving the driver lost his balance, as a result of which the said vehicle turned down and the deceased Narain Prasad Trivedi died on the spot. At that time he was 54 years old and could have survived atleast up to 75 years of his age and could have served the Government till 58 years of his age. He was due for promotion to the post of Divisional Superintendent of Education. At the time of accident he was working as Acting Deputy Director in the Department of Education, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, at Bhopal and was drawing Rs. 1,566/- per month plus Rs. 100/- as Deputation Allowance. He was also getting a sum of Rs. 1.200/- per year as examiner remuneration.
3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 admitted that the deceased was working as Acting Deputy Director. It was submitted that on the date of his death he was drawing Rs. 1,200/- per month. It was also admitted that the deceased at the time of accident was on duty, but it was denied that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed by the respondent No. 3.
4. The respondent No. 4 Ratna Mandloi was a formal party. According to the appellants she was daughter of deceased Narain Prasad Trivedi, but was married in lifetime of Narain Prasad Trivedi and was not dependent on him. She has not filed any separate written statement or claim.
5. After assessing the evidence led by both the parties, the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the driver was negligent in driving the vehicle. It was further held that the deceased would have survived for 16 years more and the appellant-claimants were entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 18,000/-, but they were not granted anything because according to the Tribunal they had already received ex gratia payment of Rs. 8,238/- and Rs. l0,000/- as Family Benefit Fund but Rs. 10,000/- as gratuity and other pensionary benefits still remained to be paid. Hence, the appellant-claimants have filed the present appeal.
6. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the deceased would have survived up to 75 years of age. The Claims Tribunal was wrong in deducting the amount of pension, gratuity, provident fund and family pension etc. The Claims Tribunal also erred in ignoring the fact that there were future chances of promotion of the deceased Narain Prasad Trivedi. The multiplier applied was also not just. In any case, the Claims Tribunal was wrong in not awarding any amount to the appellant-claimants.
7. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has only supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal.
8. The first point which is to be seen is whether the Claims Tribunal was right in deducting the amount of pension, gratuity, provident fund and other pensionary benefits. Full Bench decision of this Court in Kashiram Mathur v. Rajendra Singh 1983 ACJ 152 (MP), held that the amounts of insurance, provident fund, gratuity and family pension are not deductible from the total amount of compensation assessed on account of death under the provisions of Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act. Only the payment of ex gratia amount is deductible. This decision was also followed by Division Bench of this Court in Malti v. Sunder Transport Co. 1988 MPLJ 213.
9. While assessing the compensation, the Claims Tribunal has held that at the time of death deceased was drawing Rs. 1,650/- per month which was subject to the deduction of tax and G.P.F. and found that atleast Rs. 1,200/- or Rs. 1,400/- per month would have been the income of the deceased and must be paying Rs. 700/- per month to the claimant-appellants. While considering the future promotion, the Claims Tribunal has taken into account the possibility of his earlier accidental death also. According to the Claims Tribunal deceased was 54 years of age and was to retire after 4 years and he could have lived 12 years more and would have spent on him out of the pensionary benefits also. But it is not understood as to how the Claims Tribunal has assessed the amount of Rs. 18.000/-.
10. If we calculate the monthly contribution of Rs. 700/- which the deceased used to pay to his family, the annual amount comes to Rs. 8,400/-. After applying the multiplier of 15 total amount comes to Rs. 1,26,000/-. Therefore, according to us the appellant-claimants are entitled atleast to Rs. 1,26,000/-, which we think is just compensation in this case.
11. So far as the payment of interest is concerned, though it could be granted more but we think it just and proper in the present case to grant the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation.
12. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 23.2.1981 passed by Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna, in Claim Case No. 113 of 1980 is set aside. The appellant-claimants are ordered to be paid Rs. 1,26,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. However, the parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout.
Alert