Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meenakshi And ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1150 of 2013 & Cross Objection No. 88-CII of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision:- 07.07.2017 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

...Appellant

Versus

Smt. Meenakshi and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. S.C. Goyal, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for cross objection/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr. D.K. Mittal, DAG, Haryana for respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

RITU BAHRI J. (Oral) C.M. No. 11412-CII-2015 in Cross Objection No. 88-CII of 2015 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 680 days in filing of the cross objections is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

FAO No. 1150 of 2013 & Cross Objection No. 88-CII of 2015 1.

Appeals and cross objections, as noticed above, are being disposed of by this common judgment, having arisen out of the impugned Award dated 08.11.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula.

Facts not in dispute 2.

On 02.11.2009, Chaman Lal with Pawan Kumar on the pillion

-2were going on a scooter. They reached the link road of village Mor Thikri on derabassi-Ramgarh Road where they met Gurcharan Singh brother of Chaman Lal. Thereafter, they started their journey and in the meantime, a Haryana Roadways bus bearing registrationNo. HR-68-1164 came from the opposite side and hit the scooter of the deceased. Both the occupants fell down and were dragged to a distance of 15 feet. The accident was witnessed by Gurcharan Singh. The driver of the bus ran away from the spot leaving the bus there. Gurcharan Singh @ Bablu with the help of persons pulled the injured from under the bus and took them to hospital where they were declared dead.

Arguments Advanced 3.

On the one hand, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company argued that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal on the higher side as there were total three claimants and father of the deceased was not found to be dependent but the learned Tribunal has deduced 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, whereas, it should have been 1/3rd Further the income of the deceased was taken on the higher side at Rs.6396/- whereas the deceased was earlier lesser than this amount. 4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the cross objectorrespondent Nos. 1 to 4 contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to the enhanced, in view of the judgment 'Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) Page 77', 'Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 (9) SCC 54' and 'Munna Lal Jain and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015(3) Recent Apex Judgments 459', .

-3COMPENSATION ASSESSED BY THE MACT Pawan Kumar Sr. No.

Heads Calculations (i) Salary Rs.4920/- monthly (ii) Future Prospects Rs.4920X30%=Rs.6396/- (ii) Loss of dependency Rs.6396X1/4th=Rs.4797 (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 17 is applied 4797X12X17=Rs.9,78,588/- (v) Loss of consortium Rs.10000/- (vi) Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/- (vii) Compensation on account of funeral expenses Rs.10,000/- Total Compensation awarded Rs.10,08,588/- 5.

Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned award, appellantInsurance companay and cross objectors/respondent Nos 1 to 4 have preferred the present appeal .

REASSESSED COMPENSATION 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case filed.

7.

The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company for modification of the awarded amount and the cross objections filed by claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for enhancement of the amount is liable to be modified in view of the above mentioned judgments and the compensation is re-assessed as under:- Re-assessed compensation Pawan Kumar Sr.

No.

Heads Calculations (i) Salary Rs.5000/- per month (ii) 50% of (i) above to be added as future prospects= Rs.5000+Rs.2500=Rs.7500/- per month (iii) 1/3 of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased= Rs.7500-Rs.2500=Rs 5000/- per month

-4Sr.

No.

Heads Calculations (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 17 is applied Rs.5000 X 12 X 17= Rs.10,20,000/- (v) Loss of consortium to wife Rs.1,00,000/- (vi) Loss of love and affection to minor son Rs.1,00,000/- (vi) Loss of love and affection to parents Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/ each) (vii) Funeral charges Rs.25,000/- (viii) Total Compensation awarded Rs.13,45,000/- (ix) Enhanced amount of compensation 13,45,000 -10,08,588/-=Rs.03,36,412/- 08.

Resultantly, the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.03,36,412/- (in Cross Objection No. 88-CII of 2015) shall be payable within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its realization, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Kumari Kiran through her father Harinarayan vs. Sajjan Singh and others, 2015(1) SCC 539. Remaining conditions of disbursal of amount shall remain unaltered.

09.

With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the appeal as well as the cross objection preferred by the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 stands partly allowed to the above extent. July 07, 2017 ( RITU BAHRI ) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No