{"id":129175,"date":"2020-12-09T14:29:37","date_gmt":"2020-12-09T08:59:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=129175"},"modified":"2020-12-09T14:51:25","modified_gmt":"2020-12-09T09:21:25","slug":"allahabad-high-court-rs-5-lakh-widow-of-retired-railway-employee-kanpur","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/constitutional-law-news\/courts-news\/allahabad-high-court-rs-5-lakh-widow-of-retired-railway-employee-kanpur\/","title":{"rendered":"Allahabad High Court awards Rs 5 lakh to widow of retired railway employee in accident claim case"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The Allahabad High Court<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “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\u00a0Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker\u00a0observed.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 Supreme (SC) 1050 holding that there was no loss of income.<\/p>\n\n\n\n