JUDGMENT
S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. A claim petition was tiled before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, ‘the MACT’) claiming compensation on account of death of Rajinder Pal alleged to be 38 years of age at the time of his death. He was working as lineman in the Punjab State Electricity Board. It was alleged that on 16.3.2002, deceased Rajinder Pal was standing on the Bhawanigarh road, Mehlan Chowk when at about 2.00 p.m. a truck No. PIC 8547 came from Sunam side at a fast speed and caused accident. The driver of the truck was proceeded exparte as he did not appear. Owner of the truck contested the petition and alleged that the truck was not involved in the accident. The insurance company had also filed a separate written statement and denied the accident. It was also pleaded that the driver had no valid driving license and the amount claimed was excessive. The MACT has held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. PIC 8547.
2. We have heard Mr. Suri on behalf of the Insurance Company. It is submitted by the learned counsel that after the death of the deceased, the claimants received family pension on account of the death of the deceased, and the Tribunal has wrongly not reduced the amount from the compensation awarded. It is also submitted by Mr. Suri that the MACT has wrongly held that the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving licence. A perusal of the finding recorded by the MACT on Issue No. 3 shows that the driver did not come in the witness box. However, the owner of the vehicle tendered a copy of verification Ex.R-1, which was issued by the Licensing Authority, Ropar that Driver License No. 5379-R/1999-2000 was issued on 26.10.1999 which was valid till 25.10.2002 for driving motor cycle-LTV in the name of Gurdev Singh i.e. the alleged driver. During the trial, the Insurance Company had moved an application for direction to the owner to produce the original license of the driver. Since the driving license was in the possession of the driver, the owner could not produce the same. We are of the considered opinion that the MACT has rightly held that the Insurance Company has failed to produce the necessary evidence to show that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. Even the Clerk of the Licensing Authority was not summoned to appear as a witness.
3. Mr. Suri has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Inder Singh and Anr. v. Ram Niwas and Ors., (2004-1)136 P.L.R. 254 in support of the submission that the family pension which has been received by the claimants should have been deducted in determining the dependency of the claimants. It is undoubtedly true that in the aforesaid judgment, it has been held as follows:-
“I am of the opinion that no fault can be found with the award of the Tribunal with regard to the finding of negligence of Ram Niwas, the driver of the offending truck. The aforesaid finding is accordingly confirmed. I am also of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in deducting a sum of Rs. 310/- while determine the total dependency of the claimants on the deceased as the family pension on that amount was being paid to the claimants every month.”
4. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment however shows that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, (2002-3)132 P.L.R. 281 (S.C.) was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court was dealing with the compensation claim made by the LRs of a highly successful doctor who died in a road accident in India. His dependents had received certain social security benefits under the relevant law of the United States of America. It was contended on behalf of the Insurance Company that while assessing the amount of compensation, the benefits which have accrued to the claimants by reason of death must also be taken into account. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the claimants that only such amount received on account of social security can be deducted which becomes payable by reason of death by accident and not otherwise. The Supreme Court after considering the submissions observed as follows:-
“Similarly, how an amount receivable under a statute has any co-relation with an amount earned by an individual. Principle of loss and pain has to be on the same fine within the same sphere, of course, subject to the contract to the contrary or any provisions of law. The court has further referred to receipts of Provident fund which is a deferred payment out of contribution made by an employee during tenure of his service. Such an amount is payable respective of accidental death of the employee. The same is the position relating to family pension. There is no co-relation between the compensation payable on account of accidental death and the amounts receivable irrespective of such accidental death which otherwise in the normal course one would be entitled to receive.
We, therefore, do not allow any deduction as pressed by the Insurance Company on account of receipts of Insurance Policy and social security benefits received by the claimants.”
5. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court was cited before the MACT. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, the MACT has held as follows;-
“In case Union of India v. Pamela Jean Mahajan cited supra it was held by our Hon’ble Apex Court that pension which would otherwise being available to the claimants not arising out of the accident only the same cannot be deducted while determining compensation in view of the said authority. The amount of compensation (sic pension) which claimant No. 1 is getting cannot be deducted for determining the amount of compensation which the claimants are entitled.”
6. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the award given by the MACT does not suffer from any legal infirmity.