Surjit Kaur And ORS v. Sukhbir Singh And ORS

FAO No.5085 of 2011 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5085 of 2011 Date of Decision.21.08.2017 Surjit Kaur and others ........Appellants Vs Sukhbir Singh and others ........Respondents

Present:

None for the appellants.

Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for the insurance company.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL -.- AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL) The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of one Ajaib Singh, who died in a motor vehicular accident at the age of 63 years. He was a pensioner and drawing pension of `3200/- per month. The claimants are widow, one son and two married daughters. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tribunal while assessing the compensation held that since after the death of the deceased, the widow is entitled for the amount of pension, there is no monetary loss and therefore, awarded a compensation of `10,000/- i.e. `5000/- for loss of consortium and `5000/- for funeral expenses.

I do not find any illegality and perversity in the award passed by the Tribunal. There is no monetary loss to the dependent as the widow is getting the pension amount after the death of her husband and the son and daughters are major and cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased. Moreover, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the dependents PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.08.29 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document are entitled to a total sum of `9500/- on account of general damages i.e. loss

FAO No.5085 of 2011 -2of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. The Tribunal has already provided a sum of `10,000/- for the same. The award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly legal and just and there is no scope for interference. The appeal stands dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE August 21, 2017 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.08.29 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document