Asha & ANR v. Maman & ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:- 19.02.2018 Asha and another ...Appellants

Versus

Maman and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Ms. Gurmeet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the appellants Mr. S.P. Arora, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance company RITU BAHRI J. (Oral) C.M. No. 20731-CII-2015 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 70 days in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

F.A.O No. 6682-2015 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, Sonepat (for short, 'the Tribunal') to the tune of Rs.12,40,500/- vide impugned award dated 18.03.2015 in a claim petition No. 59-2014 filed by the present appellants on account of death of Satbir, who died in road accident17.11.2013 when a truck bearing registration No. HR-46-A1845 hit the motorcycle and due to that Satbir, Wasim and Dalip fell down on the road and received injuries. Dalip and Satbir died on the spot whereas Wasim received injuries. F.I.R No. 515 dated 17.11.2013 under Section 279-304-A IPC was registered

-2against the driver of the truck.

3.

As per the Tribunal, the deceased in the present case was 29 years old at the time of the accident. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month and 1/4th was deducted towards personal expenses. 50% was added towards future prospect and thereafter, applied the multiplier of 15, in view of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) Page 77. The claimants were awarded Rs.25000/- for the last rites, Rs.1,00,000/- were awarded towards loss of care and guidance for minor children, Rs.1 lacs towards loss of consortium and Rs.3000 towards transportation charges. The total compensation awarded to the claimant was Rs.12,40,500/-. 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 in view 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 . Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that in view of this judgment, the compensation will be reduced. 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 (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on October 31, 2017 wherein the issue

-3with 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. 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 factcentric or quantum-centric.

-4every 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.".

8.

In view of the Pranay Sethi's case (supra), no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned award dated 18.03.2015, as the future prospect will come to 40% and conventional heads will come to Rs.70,000/-.

In view of the above factual position, the appeal is dismissed. 19.02.2018 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No