Anil Kumar Sharma, J.@mdashWe have heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, counsel for the appellant, Sri Namit Kumar Sharma, counsel for the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and perused the record as also papers filed along with memo of appeal. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 4.12.2012 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Mathura in M.A.C.P. No. 475 of 2011, whereby compensation of Rs. 7,47,920/- together with simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till final payment had been awarded to the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on account of death of Natthi Lal in the instant motor accident.
2. It appears that on 11.04.2011, the deceased was going to Mathura from his motorcycle registration No. U.P.85-AA-8949 and when at about 2.30 p.m. he reached near Mandi Samiti Crossing on N.H.-2, the driver of Truck registration No. HR 69/7375 driving the vehicle rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle from behind causing fatal injuries to Natthi Lal. He was taken to Swarn Jayanti Hospital, Mathura, where he died on account of injuries on the same day. It was alleged that the deceased was aged about 58 years and had retired as Lieutenant from Army and was drawing Rs. 18,323/- per month pension. At the time of accident, he was working as Assistant Manager in Maharshi Saubhari Intermediate College, Sienh Palson, Mathura and was drawing Rs. 8,000/- per month salary. The claimant being legal representative of the deceased filed claim petition for award of Rs. 47,00,000/-. The report of accident was lodged in Police Station-Highway, Mathura against the driver of the aforesaid truck. The owner and insurer contested the claim petition denying factum of accident. The appellant also pleaded breach of terms of Insurance Policy.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has only questioned the quantum of compensation. Relying on the case of
4. In this connection, we may refer to the cases of
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to distinguish these cases on the premises that in those cases the deceased were in service and had not retired. We are afraid how this contention is sustainable? It is wholly immaterial whether the Government servant concerned was in service or has attained the age of superannuation at the time of his death in motor accident and was getting pension. Family pension is earned by employee for the benefit of family in the form of his contribution, which is payable to his heirs after his death. Even if, a Government servant may be retired, dies natural death or on account of some ailment his widow is liable to receive family pension. Why this benefit should be given to a tortfeasor i.e. the driver of offending vehicle, or vehicle owner or insurer who has taken the life of the deceased in a motor accident. Thus, sole contention raised on behalf of the appellant for challenge in this award has no force.
6. No other point has been argued before us.
7. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant in this Court, be remitted to the concerned Tribunal within three weeks.
