New Delhi, Dec 30: Income of an accident victim's
family members should not have any bearing on the amount of
compensation that they are entitled to after the incident, the
Delhi High Court has held.
"Salary earned by (victim's) wife was due to the work put
in by her and could not be adjusted or treated as compensation
for the loss of earning of her husband. Salary earned by her
could not be equated with the compensation she was entitled to
on account of death of her husband," Justice V B Gupta said.
The court disagreed with the view of the Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal which considered earnings of wife while fixing
the amount of compensation for death of her husband who was
killed in a road accident.
"The Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the
salary earned by her would compensate for the loss of salary
which was being earned by the deceased. Whatever salary she
got after employment was in lieu of services rendered by her.
The same does not mean that there was no loss of dependency,"
the court said, awarding her a compensation of Rs 20 lakh.
The court passed the order on a petition filed by
National Assurance Co. Ltd. pleading that the deceased was not
entitled to any claim as driver of offending vehicle was not
holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and
the wife of deceased got a job on compassionate ground.
The court, however, was not satisfied by its contention
and said, "Merely by bringing evidence on record that the
driver was holding a fake license, the Insurance company
cannot be absolved from its liability, in absence of cogent
and reliable evidence."
In this case, 34-year-old Jagjit Singh died in a road
accident in December 1996 when his scooter collided with a
truck parked on the wrong side with head lights off.
"In our view, the Tribunal has gravely erred in
denying the compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'
to her because of her appointment on compassionate grounds in
the place of the deceased," the court said while directing the
insurance company to pay compensation to Neelam.
"Whatever salary she got after employment was in lieu
of services rendered by her. The same does not mean that there
was no loss of dependency," the court reiterated.
Bureau Report
First Published: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 00:00