Allahabad High Court awards Rs 5 lakh to widow of retired railway employee in accident claim case

The Allahabad High Court has held that a widow is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of earnings, when she is deprived of her husband’s full pension after his death in a motor accident.

“The Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that had her husband survived, she would have got a sum of Rs 28,000/- per month which has now been halved,” Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker observed.

This appeal challenges the judgment and award dated on December 11, 2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.14/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar awarding a sum of Rs 70,000 with interest at the rate of 7% as compensation.

The deceased was 62 years of age at the time of accident which is not in dispute. The claimant was the sole surviving legal heir of the deceased is also not in dispute. The deceased was a retired railway employee and was getting pension.

The pension was halved and the widow was getting Rs 14,000 which shows that she lost Rs 14,000 because of the said demise of her husband. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs 70,000 as per the
judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 Supreme (SC) 1050 holding that there was no loss of income.

The Tribunal, thereafter, went on to hold that the deceased had retired from the Railways in 2010 and was receiving pension of Rs 28,000. After his death, a family pension of Rs 14,000 is being received by the claimant herself. Therefore, as the deceased was getting Rs 28,000 approx as pension, 50% of the same he would be spending on himself and, therefore, Rs 14,000 would be the monthly datum figure available to the widow.

Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Vidya Kant Shukla submitted that the deceased was a retired railway employee and was getting pensions. Deceased husband was 62 years of age at the time of accident and the claimant was the sole surviving legal heir. After his demise, the pension was halved and the appellant was getting Rs 14,000 which shows that she lost Rs 14,000 because of the accident.

In support of his argument, Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, and in Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and Others, 2013 and has submitted that the deduction of provident fund, pension and insurance receivable by claimants has been deprecated in the said decision.

The Respondent submitted that pecuniary advantage is a different issue and the said judgment would not apply to the facts of this case. The Court held that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot say that since the claimant is receiving ‘family pension’, there is no loss of income. It has to be seen that if not for the fatal accident of her husband, the claimant would receive the full sum.

The High Court was of the opinion that even if it goes by the principles of loss of dependency as propounded by the Apex Court and the High Courts, the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that had the Appellant’s husband survived, she would have got a sum of Rs 28,000 per month which has now been halved.

Also Read: Allahabad HC directs Prayagraj DM to decide on resuming security for man claiming threat from gang

“Hence, an amount of Rs 4,97,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited be paid to the claimant,” the Judgment said.