Debo Rani & ANR v. Balbir Etc.

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O No. 10272 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision:- 15.01.2018 Debo Rani and anr.

...Appellants

Versus

Balbir and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. R.K. Rana, Advocate for the appellants Mr Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No. 5-Insurance Company.

RITU BAHRI J. (Oral) 1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimantappellant, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, 'the Tribunal') to the tune of Rs.02,75,000/- vide impugned award dated 28.02.2014.

2.

The facts which are not in dispute are that on 02.05.2012, the deceased with his relatives had gone to Gobind Puri to meet his cousin sister Paramjit on three wheeler bearing registration No. HJR-37C-7898. When he along with his relatives was returning from her house on the said three wheeler they reached near Adhoya turn on jagadhri Ambala road, in the meantime, a truck driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the three wheeler. Resultantly, the deceased and other suffered multiple injuries. The deceased was taken on Civil Hospital,Jagadhari and was declared dead. 3.

As per the Tribunal, the deceased in the present case was 18

-2years old at the time of the accident. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month and 1/2 was deducted towards personal expenses and thereafter, applied the multiplier of 09, in view of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) Page 77. The claimants were awarded Rs.4500/- for the last rites and transportation. The total compensation awarded to the claimant was Rs.02,75,000/-.

4.

The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants 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', Asha Verman and others vs. Maharaj Singh and others, 2015(2) RCR (Civil) 520 and Kalpanaraj and others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 2015(2) SCC (Civil) 193.

5.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondentInsurance Company has vehemently opposed the present appeal and contends that the multiplier of 09 has rightly been applied by the Tribunal as the matter with regard to the fact that whether multiplier is to be taken as per the age of the deceased or as per the age of parents, is pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company

-3with regard to the multiplier is rejected as there is no stay in the matter pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

Reference at this stage can be made to a recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, passed in Spl Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on October 31, 2017 wherein the issue with regard to awarding of amount under the conventional heads has been authoritatively decided, while observing as under :- "54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/-loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same.

The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect.

-4lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantumcentric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.". In the present case, the compensation is being reassessed as per the judgments mentioned above:- Sr.

No.

Heads Calculations (i) Salary Rs.5000/- per month (ii) 40% of (i) above to be added as future prospects= Rs.5000+Rs.2000=Rs.7000/- per month (iii) 1⁄2 of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased= Rs.7000-Rs.3500=Rs.3500/- per month (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied Rs.3500 X 12 X 18= Rs.07,56,000/- (v) Conventional heads (Loss of estate and funeral expenses) Rs.30,000/- (vi) Total Compensation awarded Rs.07,86,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.07,86,000-Rs.02,75,000=Rs.5,11,000/- 9.

The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.5,11,000/- shall be payable within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of

-5certified copy of this order. The appellants shall also get interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, 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. The remaining conditions of disbursal of amount shall remain unaltered. 10.

Accordingly, the award stands modified to the above extent and the present appeal is partly allowed.

15.01.2018 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No