Harbans Kaur & ANR v. Magher Singh & ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:- 27.02.2018 Harbans Kaur and anr.

...Appellants

Versus

Magher Singh and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the appellants Mr P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Mr. A.K. Singla, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company.

RITU BAHRI J. (Oral) 1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimantsappellants, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barnala (for short, 'the Tribunal') to the tune of Rs.04,13,000/- vide impugned award dated 24.04.2013.

2.

The facts which are not in dispute are that on 30.11.2011, Amandeep Singh along with Harpreet Singh were returning after covering a marriage function at Gupta Marriage Place. They were travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-19-D-1792, which was being driven by Harpreet Singh and Amandeep Singh was a pillion rider. They were being followed by Karnail Singh and Sarovar Singh on their separate motorcycle. When they reached in the area of Amla Singh wala, in the

-2meantime, a truck bearing registration No. HR-46-C-2057 was standing on the opposite side without any indictor or parking lights and the eye of Harpreet Singh were blurred due to sharp head lights of the vehicles coming from the opposite side. Thus, the motorcycle of Harpreet Singh and Amandeep Singh dashed against the wrongly stationed truck. Both suffered multiple and grievous injuries. They were admitted to hospital where they succumbed to injuries. F.I.R was also registered in this regard. 3.

As per the Tribunal, the deceased in the present case was 21 years old at the time of the accident. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month and and thereafter, applied the multiplier of 17. 1/2 was deducted towards personal expenses, in view of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) Page 77. The claimants were awarded 5000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded to the claimants was Rs.4,13,000/-.

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.

5.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondentInsurance Company has vehemently opposed the present appeal. 6.

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

7.

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

-3- (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. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking 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.

-4should 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 quantum-centric. 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.".

7.

In the present case, the compensation is being reassessed as per the judgments mentioned above:- Sr.

No.

Heads Calculations (i) Salary Rs.4000/- per month (ii) 40% of (i) above to be added as future prospects= Rs.4000+Rs.1600=Rs.5600/- per month (iii) 1/2 of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased= Rs.5600-Rs.2800=Rs.2800/- per month (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied Rs.2800 X 12 X 18= Rs.06,04,800/- (v) Conventional heads (Loss of estate and funeral expenses) Rs.30,000/- (vi) Total Compensation awarded Rs.06,34,800/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.06,34,800-Rs.04,13,000=Rs.2,21,800/- (rounded off to Rs.2,22,000/-) 8.

The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- shall be payable within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The appellants shall also get interest @ 7.5% 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 Shri Nagar Mal and ors vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and others, passed in Civil Appeal

-5No. 448-2018., decided on 19.01.2018. The remaining conditions of disbursal of amount and recovery rights shall remain unaltered. 09.

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

27.02.2018 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No