Uttar Pradesh Roadways Corporation Through Its Regional Manager v. Kailash Chander And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH XOBJC-35-2021 Date of Decision : 16.01.2025 UTTAR PRADESH ROADWAYS CORPORATION .... Appellant

VERSUS

KAILASH CHANDER AND OTHERS .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6 and cross-objector. Service of respondents No.7 and 8 dispensed with vide order dated 06.01.2020.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellantInsurance Company aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded vide award dated 05.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). During the pendency of the appeal, cross-objections being XOBJC-35-2021 were filed by claimantrespondent No.2 herein. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

-2Sr. No.

Heads Compensation Awarded Monthly income ₹11,500 Annual income [₹11,500 x 12] = ₹1,38,000 Deduction 50% [₹1,38,000 - ₹69,000] = ₹69,000 4.

Future prospects 40% [₹69,000 + ₹27,600] = ₹96,600 5.

Multiplier of '15'

[₹96,600 x 15] = ₹14,49,000 Funeral expenses ₹15,000 Loss of estate ₹15,000 Total Compensation ₹14,79,000 Interest 9% per annum 4.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed as ₹11,500 per month as the minimum wage of an unskilled worker prevailing at the time of the accident was ₹8,070 per month. 5.

Per contra, learned counsel for claimant-respondents No.1 to 6 and cross objector is not in a position to deny the fact that the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed by the Tribunal inasmuch as the minimum wage of an unskilled worker prevailing at the time of the accident was ₹8,070 per month. It is, however, the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents No.1 to 6 and cross-objector that the multiplier of '15' has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal whereas it ought to have been '18' keeping in view the age of the deceased being 22 years at the time of the accident. Learned counsel would further contend that the no amount had been awarded under the head 'loss of consortium' and further that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for claimant-respondents No.1

-3to 6 and cross-objector has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121], National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642]. Heard.

In the present case, the Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased as ₹11,500 per month, however, the minimum wage of an unskilled worker prevailing at the time of the accident was ₹8,070 per month. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as ₹8,070 per month. A multiplier of '15' has wrongly been applied and hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of '18' would be applicable keeping in view the age of the deceased. Further, the amount awarded under the conventional heads are on the lower side and no amount has been awarded under the head 'loss of consortium'. Accordingly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), claimant-respondents No.

1 to 6 would be entitled to ₹18,000 (₹15,000 + 20% increase) towards loss of estate and ₹18,000 (₹15,000 + 20% increase) towards funeral expenses.

-420% increase) towards loss of consortium. Since no challenge is laid to the deduction of 50% and addition of 40% made by the Tribunal, the same are maintained.

8.

Accordingly, the reworked out compensation is as under : Sr. No.

Heads Compensation Awarded Monthly income ₹8,070 Annual income [₹8,070 x 12] = ₹96,840 Deduction 50% [₹96,840 - ₹48,420] = ₹48,420 4.

Future prospects 40% [₹48,420 + ₹19,368] = ₹67,788 5.

Multiplier of '18'

[₹67,788 x 18] = ₹12,20,184 Funeral expenses ₹18,000 Loss of estate ₹18,000 8.

Loss of consortium [₹48,000 x 4] = ₹1,92,000 (i) Filial Total Compensation ₹14,48,184 9.

The interest @9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is maintained. The amount shall be apportioned between claimant-respondents No.1 to 6 as directed by the Tribunal.

10.

In view of the above discussion, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. The present appeal as well as the crossobjections being XOBJC-35-2021 filed by claimant-respondent No.2 stand disposed off. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. 16.01.2025 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE NOTE:

Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No