LexBHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD versus KANTA AGGARWAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 165 ~ BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD A V. KANTA AGGARWAL AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4216 of 2008) JULY 7, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.J Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 166 - Just compensation .::_ Determination of - Benefits received by widow on account of death of husband in motor accident - Held: To be deducted c while computing the compensation - On facts, widow provided with compassionate appointment and getting salary of Rs.47001- p.m. and also provided residence - Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8.48 lacs - In view of fact that .> accident took place 14 years back, it would be just and proper D -y' that sum of Rs. 5 lakhs already deposited, be withdrawn by claimants in full and final settlement. In a motor accident, husband of first respondent- claimant died. Respondents who were widow ·and chil- dren of deceased filed claim petition under s.166 of Mo- E tor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.8.48 lacs along with interest @ 9% p.a. Before High Court stand of appellant was that on the -~ death of deceased, widow was provided with compas- sionate appointment and was getting salary of Rs.4700/- F p.m. and a residence was also provided to her. High Court did not accept this plea and observed that quantum of compensation was rightly fixed. In appeal to this Court, the appellant ccmtended that G the benefits which claimant had received on account of -r death of her husband were to be deducted while com- puting the compensation and that the appeal filed by the claimants was pending adjudication and without consid- 165 H 166 SUPREME COURI REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A ering the relevant factors, the High Court had declined to interfere. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. There are several undisputed factors: (i) s the husband of respondent No.1 had received fatal inju- ries in an accident; (ii) the claimants seem to be facing· fi- nancial problem; (iii) the concept of just compensation cannot be lost sight of. The High Court does not appear to have considered the effect of amount received on account c of compassionate appointment. [Para 6] [168-D & E] 1.2. The High Court lost sight of the· fact that the ben- efits which the claimant receives on account of the death or injury have to be duly considered while fixing the com- . pensation. It is pointed out that respondent No.1 was get- D ting Rs.4,700/- p.m. and a residence has been provided to her and actually the compassionate appointment was given immediately after the accident. In view of this, the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainaole. However, the accident took place more than 14 years back and it E would not be desirable to send the matter back to the Tri- bunal for fresh consideration. A sum of rupees five lakhs has been deposited by this Court's order dated 1.11.2004. In view of the background facts, it is just and proper that the sum of Rupees five lakhs already deposited should F be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants in full and final settlement of the claim relatable to the death of the deceased. [Paras 12, 13] [174-G,H; 175-A,B & C] G CIVIL. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4216 of 2008 · From the final Judgment and order dated 11 /5/2004 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No. 3351/2003 Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Dcora, Harshvardhan Jha and H Mis. K.L. Mehta & Co. for the Appellant. .- ' BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD v. KANTA 167 AGGARWAL & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J] Jasbir Singh Malik. Shilpi, DeepakAggarwal, R.K. Tripathi A and S.K. Sabharwal for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned 8 Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismiss- ing the appeal filed against the award dated 4.2.2003 passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short 'Tribu- nal'). 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: c In an accident which took place on 16.11.1994 at about 10.00 p.m. K.C. Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as the 'de- ceased') who was sitting directly behind the driver lost his life. Balbir Singh (PW-1) was an eye witness to the accident. At the D relevant time, he was standing in front of Mayur Dhaba near which the accident took place. He categorically deposed that the jeep was coming from Bilaspur side
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.