High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/2703/2023allowed

Pawan Kumar And Another v. Parvesh Kumar Chauhan And Others

2026-02-23Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma12 pages

Pawan Kumar and anr.

......Appellants vs.

Parvesh Kumar Chauhan and ors.

......Respondents

"#$% &''&

# ( )(*+( %

''& ,- ..

/''& Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced?

Yes % 01 2'

2 2

Present:

Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. I.S. Pabla, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent&Insurance Company.

* * * 2

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 01.12.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.14,14,100/& along with interest @ 9% per annum, on account of death of Shiva in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 02.07.2020. 2.

As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity.

2 1 21

2 3.

The learned counsel for the claimants&appellants contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced as per latest law.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation, as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, they prays for dismissal of the appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

1 13

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 45

& 2),#+ )#

6, laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under:& "30

!"#$

%# !"&$

&' !"($

31)

* (+,

$ .

(+,

* * * * * * 42.)

&$ 0

1 $

/ !2 !(%+ %!

3!4 %'#+

3!'#!#(

3!(#'&+

3!&&!&(

3!#&'(+

3!!(!((

35(''+

34'!'(

3( ''4+

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 4

& 2 &76 has clarified the law under Sections 166, 163&A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following aspects:& (A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand;

(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased; (C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier; (D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation; (E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: with permanent job; self&employed or fixed salary. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:& "52. 6 conventional heads

8* 7 %(+++

7 !+++++

0 9

;

7 !(+++7 &++++ !(+++

)

!+,

)

& = = = = = 59.3)

(+,

#+,

&+ (+

(+ '+

!(,6

59.4*

&+,

6 %(,

&+(+

!+,

(+'+

59.5.

#+#%0> ?

59.6.

0> @ &%/

59.7

59.87

!(+++ 7 &++++ 7 !(+++

!+,

A 8.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 9+

(# -

(")# (* +, (:

1;+;

<"'

() +

=)=#) + =#"

4 7 7

2 6 after considering 2 #-

<#+ "),#

and # ( :

2),#

has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant paras of the same are reproduced as under:& B216 <

C 0 8

;

D D

D D D D D D

)

%!! Spousal consortium

/ D

%!%Parental consortium

D %!# Filial consortium

3 /

23 3>

6 6

D C 0 8*

7 &++++

A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased Shiva was 18 years of age at the time of the accident .Therefore, the tribunal has rightly assessed the age of the deceased as 18 years by placing reliance upon the post&mortem report (Exhibit P&4) and has correctly applied the multiplier of 18 in accordance with the settled law .

10.

A further perusal of the impugned award reveals that the deceased was stated to be earning Rs 20000 per month by selling sugarcane juice. To prove the same testimony was given by PW1 Pawan kumar but no documentary evidence was placed on record . In the absence of the documentary proof, the learned tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased by taking into consideration the minimum wages as Rs 8,625 per month . 11.

It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KUBRABIBI & ORS. versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS, 2023 SCC Online SC 1855 has held.

A 12.

Furthermore this Court in number of judgments held that in cases where compensation is sought and there is no definite proof of income, particularly when the deceased belongs to the unorganised sector, the social status, nature of work, and overall circumstances of the case must be taken into consideration. Strict proof of income is not mandatory in such circumstances, and a reasonable notional income is required to be assessed. 13.

In the present case, the deceased was 18 years of age and was stated to be seller of sugarcane juice . He was maintaining two dependents. 14.

Considering the nature of his avocation, his age, social and economic background, and the prevailing wages at the relevant time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs 8625/&, which appears to be on the lower side and not reflective of his actual earning capacity. 15.

In view of the totality of the circumstances, the monthly income of ₹ the deceased is reasonably reassessed at 10,000/& per month for the purpose of computation of just and fair compensation.

16.

A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/2rd towards personal and living expenses 17.

Furthermore learned tribunal has rightly awarded 40% as future prospects according to the settled law.

18.

A further perusal of the award reveals that the amounts granted under the conventional heads, namely funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium, are also on the lower side and not in consonance with the settled law. Therefore, the impugned award warrants interference and indulgence of this Court.

19.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award dated 01.12.2022 is modified accordingly. The appellants&claimants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation as per the calculations made here&under:& Sr.

No.

Heads Compensation Awarded Monthly Income Rs.10000/& Future prospects @ 40% Rs.4000/& (40% of 10000) Deduction towards personal expenditure 1/4th Rs.7000/& (14000 X 1/2) 4.

Total Income Rs.7000/&(14000&7000) Multiplier Annual Dependency Rs.15,12,000/& (7000X12X18) Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/& Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/& Loss of Consortium Rs.96,800/& Filial : Rs. 48,400/&x2

- +,("

; ( "' &>/8> ? .)* ; (

Amount Awarded by the Tribunal "' /> /> ? (= (*.

+ )(

"'> >? &/8 / /

20.

So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 5

& and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation

2),#+ )#

> the appellants&claimants are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization. 21.

Respondent&Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the accounts of the claimants/appellants, as per award dated 01.12.2022. The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.

22.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

''& Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/non&speaking :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes