High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/5745/2016disposed of

Baljit Kaur & ORS v. Jagroop Singh & ORS

2022-07-22Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul5 pages

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 22.07.2022 Baljit Kaur and others ...... Appellants

Versus

Jagroop Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present :

Mr. B.S.Saini, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Radhe Shyam Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral) The appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants against the award dated 04.01.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal') in the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act wherein the following compensation was assessed and awarded to the appellants on account of death of Avtar Singh (hereinafter called as 'deceased') and the injuries suffered by appellant No.1 in a motor vehicular accident on 12.12.2013:- Monthly income Rs.9,000/- Annual income (Rs.9,000 x 12) Rs.1,08,000/- Deduction towards personal expenses (1/3) Rs.36,000/- Annual dependency (Rs.1,08,000-Rs.36,000 ) Rs.72,000/- Multiplier Total dependency (Rs.48,000 x 18) Rs.9,36,000/-

-2Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Compensation on account of injuries Rs.5,000/- Total compensation Rs.10,66,000/- The amount of compensation along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition till its realization, was ordered to be paid jointly and severally by respondents No.1 and 2. The amount of compensation was ordered to be paid to the extent of 40% to appellant No.1 and 30% each to appellants No.2 and 3 respectively. The amount of compensation paid to appellant No.3 was directed to be deposited in the shape of FDR in his name in a nationalized bank, which would be paid to him on attaining the age of majority with the permission of the Court. In the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it was alleged that on the fateful day at about 6.

30 pm when the deceased Avtar Singh alongwith his wife Baljit Kaur i.e. appellantclaimant No.1 herein was going on motorcycle bearing Registration No.PB11AD-5913, the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-23J-(T)4240 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1, struck against the motorcycle of the deceased. Resultantly, the deceased sustained multiple injuries on various parts of his body including his head. Even though the deceased was removed to the hospital, however, he succumbed to his injuries on 12.12.2013. FIR No.147 dated 13.12.2013 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Amloh against respondent No.1. It was claimed that the deceased, who was 45 years of age, was an agriculturist and earning approximately Rs.30,000/- per month.

-3that the deceased was doing dairy farming and was a transporter. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, on the face of it, is inadequate and not in consonance with the settled law in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Vs. Pranay Sethi : 2017 SCC 270 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018(4) RCR (Civil) 333. He further submits that even though the total monthly income of the deceased was Rs.65,000/- per month, however, Tribunal gravely erred in assessing his monthly income as only Rs.9,000/- per month by erroneously treating him as a labourer. Still further, the Tribunal did not even grant any compensation qua future prospects, which should have been to the extent of 25%.

Learned counsel submits that even under the conventional heads, a meagre sum of only Rs.1,25,000/- had been awarded, which too was not in accordance with the settled law. He thus, prays for reassessment and modification of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Per contra, while opposing the prayer made by counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that no evidence whatsoever was led by the claimants qua the income of the deceased being Rs.65,000/- per month and hence, the Tribunal could not be faulted with for treating him as a labourer and assessing his income at Rs.9,000/- per month, which in fact was even higher than the minimum wages notified by the State government qua labourer for the relevant period. Learned counsel for the insurance company was however, unable to controvert that the claimants were indeed entitled to compensation with respect to future prospects and the compensation awarded under the conventional heads also required to be

-4reassessed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Since no cogent evidence was brought on record by the claimants qua the monthly income of the deceased, hence, the amount assessed at Rs.9,000/- per month by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. However, since the deceased was 45 years of age on the date of accident, the claimants would be entitled to an addition of 25% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects as per the settled law. The compensation under conventional heads including compensation towards loss of consortium to the widow of the deceased in the sum of Rs.1 lakh admittedly is not in consonance with the settled law. However, at the same time it needs to be observed that no compensation has been granted to the children for loss of parental consortium. They would thus, be entitled to Rs.

40,000/- each for loss of parental consortium as per the settled law. Rs.1 lakh granted to the widow of the deceased for loss of consortium being not in consonance with the settled law would stand reduced to Rs.40,000/-. The claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and for funeral expenses, which requires to be modified. Since it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the aforesaid amounts would be subject to 10% enhancement after every three years, 10% enhancement qua the above-mentioned conventional heads would have to be made. Hence, the amount of compensation under the conventional heads stands modified to Rs.16,500/- each for loss of estate & funeral expenses. Besides this, the claimants, who are widow and the children of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.

44,000/- each, for loss of spousal and parental consortium respectively.

-5The compensation is reassessed and modified as follows: Monthly income Rs.9,000/- Future prospects (25%) Rs.2,250/- Annual income (Rs.9,000 + Rs.2,250 x 12) Rs.1,35,000/- Deduction towards personal expenses (1/3) Rs.45,000/- Annual dependency (Rs.1,35,000-Rs.45,000 ) Rs.90,000/- Multiplier Total dependency (Rs.90,000 x 13) Rs.11,70,000/- Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000 x 3) Rs.1,32,000/- Compensation for the injuries sustained Rs.5,000/- Total compensation Rs.13,40,000/- In the circumstances, the appellants-claimants are entitled to afore-detailed enhanced compensation of Rs.2,74,000/- (Rs.13,40,000Rs.10,66,000) along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization in the same ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal vide award dated 04.01.2016. With the above modifications, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

22.07.2022 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No