Gindo Devi And ANR v. Sachin Yadav And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 1.

FAO-3772-2019 (O & M) Date of decision : 17.12.2024 GINDO DEVI AND ANR ...... APPELLANTS versus SACHIN YADAV AND ORS ......RESPONDENTS 2.

CHOLAMANDLAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ...... APPELLANT versus SMT GINDO DEVI AND ORS ......RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN *** Present :- Mr. Parshant Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants in FAO-3772-2019 and respondent in FAO-2119-2019.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for the appellant-Ins. Co. in FAO-2119-2019 and for respondent in FAO-3772-2019. Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Lohiya, Advocate for respondent No.1 in FAO-3772-2019.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) 1.

These appeals are directed against the award dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Rewari. FAO No.2119 of 2019 has been filed by the Insurance Company and FAO No.3772 of 2019 has been filed by the claimants. In both the

appeals, the issue being agitated is qua the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal tabulated the quantum of compensation, which is as under:- i Income of the deceased Rs.15000/- per month ii Future prospects Rs.3750/- @ 25% iii Total Annual Income (18750 x 12) Rs.2,25,000/ iv Less 1/3rd (deducted towards personal expenses of deceased) (2,25,000/3) Rs.75,000/- v Loss of annual dependency (Rs.2,25,000/- - Rs.75,000/-) Rs.1,50,000/- vi Multiplier vii Loss of future income (1,50,000 x 13) Rs.19,50,000/- viii Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- each) ix Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- x Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- xi Loss of spousal and parental consortium Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- payable to each of petitioners No.1 and 2) Total Compensation payable Rs.21,60,000/- 2.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-2119-2019 points out that there is no proof of the income of the deceased yet the same has been assessed at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month, despite the fact that the minimum wages notified for the relevant year were Rs.9342/- for the skilled worker. He further points out that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation under both the heads i.e. loss of love and affection and loss of spousal and parental consortium. 3.

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the

income earned by the deceased from diary farming has not been considered. However, he is not in a position to dispute that there is no evidence adduced qua the same.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the case files.

5.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15000/- per month. He being an agriculturist and having considerable holding of 03 acres of land in the name of his son cannot be equated with the workman to be governed by the minimum wages. Thus no fault can be found that the Tribunal assessing his earnings at the rate of Rs.15000/- per month. 6.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate, however, has rightly contending that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation under the head of loss of spousal and parental consortium at the rate of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection. Thus an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- granted under the head of loss of love and affection needs to be deducted as Rs.80,000/- stands granted for loss of consortium. 7.

With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, both the appeals are hereby disposed off.

8.

Ordered accordingly.

( PANKAJ JAIN ) JUDGE 17.12.2024 A.Kaundal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No