High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/3927/2014disposed of

Sushma And ORS v. Rajesh Kumar And ORS

2022-05-13Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul6 pages

!"#$#

%" &'% (# (%

) '

#$%

' (((( %

) '*#+ ', +

! ! +

,-,#.,/0

& ) " 1

2 23

/44

/566

+ '+

4 ,,,7*8-9:

;

4 ,,,7*+ !

+* (-# # .

/ 0!1 / '%

09,,7* %

/.<09,,=90 >

10,:3 ** 0

90 ?

1/70 3 /#

0, -

/4 6

0, 9,,</4=4 5 >

@< ** /, A

/, // A

A B

/, /. )

/6,-.,/. /,#, 1

+ ! * "

C*4#D*.546 1

3 ! '

' !

! !

C " +

! >%"

.6-

/5,-.,/.

.-5B#,0*%&+

& '"

#9'

3++

/, ,,,7*

09,,7*

+ #9 '

+ C

National Insurance Co. Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 SCC 270 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., 2018(4) RCR (Civil) 333. 4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel opposite by submitting that it was the case of the claimants themselves that the deceased was 35 years of age, on the date of alleged accident, hence, the multiplier applied i.e. 16 was correct and did not warrant any interference. He further submits that though, it was claimed that the deceased was a diploma holder and was working as a Lab Attendant in a School, however, no certificate in the said regard or any authentic salary certificate was placed on record by the claimants. Learned counsel further submits that one PW-5 while stepping into the witness-box, did produce documents Ex.PW5/B to Ex.PW-5/G i.e.

the salary record of the deceased from January, 2012 to June, 2012 and the attendance register of the school, however, there was no endorsement of the Principal of the School, much less, any other authorized person on behalf of the School in any of those documents. Further submits that in fact it had come in the evidence of PW-5 that the deceased had passed class 12th but he conceded that he was unaware as to whether the deceased was a diploma holder and qualified to be a Lab Attendant.

Learned counsel, thus, submits that the Tribunal had rightly treated the deceased as a labourer and assessed his monthly income accordingly. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company was, however, not able to dispute that the appellants-claimants were entitled to future prospects, spousal and parental consortium, besides modification with respect to the compensation assessed under other conventional heads.

+#9'

/4 + ! '

' +

! '

09 ,,7* '

+ ! '

+ C 2

Pranay Sethi's case (supra) F

/9 ,,,7*

< 0, ,,,7*

/,:

'C 2

Rasmita Biswal and others Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another : 2022(1) RCR(Civil) 344

+ Pranay Sethi's case(supra). Hence, the amount of compensation under the conventional heads stands modified to Rs.16,500/- each, for loss of estate & funeral expenses. D

' 7.

Resultantly, the compensation is re-assessed as follows:- !

" #$ / '%

09,,7* %

/.<09,,=90 >

10,:3 90,,<0,7/,,=./ 4,,7* 0

-9 4,,7* ?

< 1/70 3 /6 5,,7*

! 94 -,,7* -

/4 6

! 94 -,,</4=5 ,- .,,7* 5

1 3

00 /,

00 ,,,7*<9=.

., // >

@< /4 /.

/4 /#

,0 ,,,7*

86:

;

) ', %.3*