High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/34/2016disposed of

Dharambir v. Kala @ Dharmender And ORS

2022-11-15Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul9 pages

!"# $%&%!'()**

+)+

( ,-

.* .

/ -

!" #

$ %&'(&)*+, $ %&+-.-&)*+, $ %&--,&)*+,

/01

$ %&+',&)*+,

1 0 !" #

!34 !"

'&2 53

6 7

/ !"

,& 3

6 7

7 8! !"

+ ) $ %&+',&)*+, $ %&+-.-&)*+,

/ - 3* -

# !

# #

4 # ""

#" ! !

" $ #" !

#$ %&'(&)*+,

4 "

0 ),*:)*+. 4

2 ;# < <=

"" # #2 ! " ""

)(*,)*+)& !24 '& %!' 1# #670 1%68'

9!0 44 99 '&:$9 %2 '& %' !' $$!8'!"# 0!"%12 %( .1* !* # 2!8'

. ***>& )

+( ' ?#

"4 @' )(*>& ( ?#"

.* ***>& . $

). ***>& , ?#

). ***>&

+ @' )(*>& !24 '& %!' 1# #670 1%68'

9!0 44 99 '&:$9 %2 '& %' !' $$!8'!"# 0!"';8&0( .1* !* # 2!8'

. ***>& )

4 6 # 0 #

";.*A= - .**>& ' "

;B= ' -.*>& (

. ?#

"4 ' -.* 5 +) 5 +: C : +* ***>& , $

). ***>& - ?#

). ***>&

: ,* ***>& !24 '& %!' 1# #670 1%68'

9!0 44 99 '&:$9 %2 '& %' ++ !' $$!8'!"# 0!".0 '% <%( .1* !* # 2!8'

. ***>& )

- ' ?#

"4 (, ,)*>& ( ?#"

.* ***>& . $

). ***>& , ?#

). ***>&

+ (, ,)*>& !24 '& %!' 1# #670 1%68'

9!0 44 99 '&:$9 %2 '& %' +)+ !' $$!8'!"# 0!".

1% ( .1* !* # 2!8'

. ***>& )

' ?#

"4 @@ @**>& ( ?#"

.* ***>& . ? # !

## " "

) ** ***>&;+

"= , $

). ***>& - ?#

). ***>&

' @@ @**>& ?

0 #

" 2

0" " "

#" 4

0+. ***>&

D !

4. ***>&

# 0 !

4. ***>&

4 0

" #<+)<

" " 0 #

"" 4

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants also argued that the Tribunal had failed to appreciate that deceased Ankush was working as a lab technician and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. His income was erroneously assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- per month and hence it also required to be reassessed and modified accordingly.

# 0

" !

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, 2018(4) RCR (Civil) 333 National Insurance Co. Vs.

Pranay Sethi : 2017 SCC 270 and required to be reassessed and enhanced.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondentinsurance company while controverting the submissions made by the counsel opposite, argued that there was no evidence led by the claimants with respect to the income of deceased Birmati, Ankush,

) Shanti Devi and Sarita and, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal could not be faulted with. Learned counsel further argued that the learned Tribunal erred in granting future prospects to the extent of 50% to the claimants on account of death of Ankush whereas as per the settled law future prospects should have been granted to the extent of 40%, hence, the same were liable to be reduced. It was further argued that rather the compensation awarded under the conventional heads by the Tribunal was exorbitant and on the higher side which was thus liable to be scaled down.

6 !

! " This Court concurs with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent- 4 that since no evidence with respect to the income of deceased Ankush was led before the Tribunal, the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month by treating him as daily wager had been rightly assessed by the Tribunal. However, deceased Birmati, Shanti Devi and Sarita were home makers, therefore, they deserved to be treated as skilled workers on account of multifarious contribution made by each of them as a home maker to their respective families. In the circumstances, their monthly income is liable to be enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.5,226/- as per the the minimum wages notified by the State Government in respect of the skilled workers for the relevant period.

This Court concurs with the submissions made by learned counsel for the insurance company that the Tribunal erred in granting

50% towards future prospects to the claimants on account of death of Ankush and, therefore, claimants are entitled to future prospects only to the extent of 40%. Still further, claimants for deceased Birmati and Sarita would be entitled to future prospects as per the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). A perusal of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal erred in assessing the annual income of the deceased, therefore, compensation awarded has to be reassessed in consonance with the settled law.

T D <

7 ! "

# E # #+. ***>& "#

# #

(* ***>& "#

# "

4 D <

7 # 1 "+*A

# !

4 # "

+*A

" !

Pranay Sethi's case (supra). D

# "

" !

# +, .**>& "# # #

(( ***>& " # # " 6

-+* $ %&'(&)*+, #

-+) $ %&--,&)*+, 0 4"

"" # #"

& !24 '& %!' ! 0 44 99 '&:$9 %2 '& %' !'

$$!8'!"# 0!"%12 %( .1* !* # 2!8'

. )),>& )

. )),>&5+)C,) -+)>& ' $

";).A= +. ,-:>& (

,) -+)>&F+. ,-:>&C-: '@*>& . "

;B= -: '@*>&;>=)C'@ +@.>& ,

"4 -: '@*>& ;&= '@ +@.>& '@ +@.>& -

+( :

"4 '@ +@.>&5+(C. (: -'*>& @ ?#" (( ***>&5.C) )* ***>& +* $

+, .**>& ++ ?#

+, .**>&

: *+ -'*>& !24 '& %!' ! 0 44 99 '&:$9 %2 '& %' !'

$$!8'!"# 0!"';8&0( .1* !* # 2!8'

. ***>& )

. ***>&5+)C,* ***>& ' $

";(*A= )( ***>& (

,* ***>&F)( ***>&C:( ***>& . "

;B= :( ***>&;>=)C() ***>& ,

"4 :( ***>& ;&= () ***>& () ***>& -

"4 () ***>&5+:C- ., ***>& @ ?#" (( ***>&5)C:: ***>& +* $

+, .**>& ++ ?#

+, .**>&

: -- ***>&

= !24 '& %!' ! 0 44 99 '&:$9 %2 '& %' ++ !'

$$!8'!"# 0!".0 '% <%( .1* !* # 2!8'

. )),>& )

. )),>&5+)C,) -+)>& ' "

;B= ,) -+)>&;>=)C'+ '.,>& (

"4 ,) -+)>& ;&= '+ '.,>& '+ '.,>& .

- ,

"4 '+ '.,>&5-C) +@ (@)>& - ?#" (( ***>&5-C' *: ***>& : $

+, .**>& @ ?#

+, .**>&

. ,* (@)>& !24 '& %!'!0 44 99 '&:$9 %2 '&%' +)+ !'

$$!8'!"# 0!".

1% ( .1* !* # 2!8'

. )),>& )

. )),>&5+)C,) -+)>& ' $

";).A= +. ,-:>& (

,) -+)>&F+. ,-:>&C-: '@*>& . "

;+>(= -: '@*>& ;>= ( C +@ .@-.>& ; #+@ .@:>&= ,

"4 -: '@*>& ;&= +@ .@:>& .: -@)>& -

"4 .: -@)>&5+.C: :+ ::*>& @ ?#" (( ***>&5(C+ -, ***>& +* $

+, .**>& ++ ?#

+, .**>&

+* @* ::*>&

0 :A

# ## 0#"

" G %#

-+* $ %&'(& )*+,;%H = #

-+) $ %&--,&)*+, ;%H =

4(( ***>& "# # " #"

" 4

I #"

# !

)** ;

/ -= 4 I

> I