High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/8445/2014dismissed

United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Shanti Devi And ORS

2023-09-22Mr. Justice Karamjit Singh10 pages

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

-% ./ ! ! ( 00000

&12 !3456&

./ ! ! / -% #!

$% &'( )*!'!

00000 !"#$%&' - %./ '

((,, !(

( 5!2/8 - /! 7

9 %- /! 7

((,, 3 !)( *(

( ( 3 !(

( 6%: /;) ,7

/;) ,7

( 3 <%,(7

9!1/8 .!:, 7

( 3 00000

9/!'!/ ,,!( 1' ! 8 !

!,1) )

!: ! /

&12 !/ !:456&

!,1)

/ ' '(

! ! 7

9/1!

= 12 ( 5!1 ,?3!>>%

@5!1 ,?3!>>%8 '!:1 >'/!8> (, /!!,, :@ !

8// / 1% (!,, :A B!(%7 % >=

>3@5 C 78/! /8 !! / :,!: '

1)6

!.!:/ ' / % >5!1 ,?3!>>% %, 8/! /7/%

!'%, !(, !2%! !

/( $3

8 :! :

! 6

!.!:/%. ! "= $@&! @,! .

!@ !

! ! 78/! /8 8!

1)./ '/ ,!.!

</ ! !,, : /'

(%9/!: % >8 81)< / .!:/ * /'

8 !%8!

/9/#!

$% &'( )9/ 8

) : 8 ( 1) (! % C7

=(' /1)!:8> & ( /8 , !: / 7

=(' /1) !:(!

21 /!

,' /,)! '8

=9/

1 / 8( /! ' /

/) , !' '(

!8 /

= ,:8!

9/ , !'( !

!8 1) /!78 !%

/!: % > ( 3 !,2! 8!

' 8/!

%' ! 8 ! !

8 (,

,$8 :! 1) /(,! :

! 6

! .!:/ $% )!,(

' 78/! , /

%' ! 8 ! !% , >(,!'! ) 12 !

!' ! 7 /! /!:

/! ,8 /,!: ,! !,! % >! D% !8 1!:!!!,

! /(!! -/! , ' !

! (,! )

( 3 * /'

!, (

' 8/!/! ,

// , ), % >!D% ! ( 3 < / .!:/ C /(, !: /( !7,,8!:!%8 ' A/ / / 5!1 ,?3!>>%3

'! ! ! ! %1) / :,!: !!:1) ( 3E@@

A/ / !

, ! / '(

!7 !'8/' 8/

'% E@@ A/ / !'( !

!! 8!

/!,!'!

!E@

A/ / /! /9% >=9 >1 !:3@5 C

8 /,!: ,! !!!:,! % ('!

!' ,,: ! E@

,! 9/ %, F '!@A3

/ 78/(% (( ' '( GF@7 $ GF@ 7 $% @,! ) GF@ :!

! !!

!:/! ,GF@ @A ./ '/ ,!(:

!: /

! !D% !1!:)8!

@A;

( / !,, :.

2(%3 8 F '!7!

1,!/

/ 8 !:

=(' /

,,)( / / // * /'

(( ! /8!

1F A 8/!, / /( / , )! " / !: / %, /( !7 / ! &, !' 9!1% ,7@

, !/ 7H /9!1% ,I ,,8 !'( !

: '(

!8 /7

= ,:8!

/! ?

J ( %' ' /

!,!: / ( !

! !,, !

,!B

!! % !D% ,/ /! 8 !% /!:/! ,82! ,) 8,, ,,)/,,!

1, ( ) '% 9/!% )1!: ::!1) /8 / !,

8/!, / , ! > / '

'% / !, 12 !456&

$/ / / %, /( ! 9/ %, (( !:1/ , )%1'!

/ 8 1 /, % /( ) /(

/!'! 1

> K = / 1 , %,

1) 9!1% ,7! /,!:/ , 8, !81)LM1,(F&% ! ,!-,.$!/,$-01!,2345!65!45!,6152+789 ,:$!,-% 89*9/ %,!% )/ % /

8/!, ( !: / !'(%: 7 / 9!1% , 7

= , !%' /' / / 9/

( /

! , ! 8 ! ,6152,- 23#!,2;$ 5/4,2' ,!2,'$601+

& &!!,

"7, !%'

=$ /! F / %, '( )/ ,(, ,!

%( / !!LM1,(F &% !0!1,/$2$!,- 23#!,2;$5/4,2' 1/16$%0,",6 12"0,:,6,2%560$!3<

9& .&9/ %,

) , ! !(%

! ! D% ! %1'!

! /

>(, % / :,!: !!: % >3@5 C 7 8/! / 8 !%8!

/ /#!

$% &'( )

!' /

,,: ! &%, / !% '( ) % /

/ 8 !: )8> % /7/! ! ' 1) /, 9!1% ,

=(' /! , /!:/ ! .7 ( ) ! '

/ (( , !, 1) / !% )1 ,,88/!, 12 !!,1) / , 1!'! / // 7 / %, /

!%38!

%' ! !D% !!!:/ ,) !1) /9!1% ,! % :

! /

( $ / 1 % / %1'!

8 %'

! / 8 >!,, 8>'

1!: ( /! '!!'%'8 :8 ( ) ( /

!F1) / .

;' $ / 1% /%1'!

'%, !(,! /%,/ 1 ((,! :

!' /

/ 8

) 9/ %, / , / % / %1'!

, : '(

!% ,,

/ ! ,/ (,!2,'$601=3 %( ,:8!

J% %(( % // ' J

, ( ) $ / 1% /%1'!

(( ,!,1) / !% '( ) 1 !'!7 8/ / 12 ! !, 1) / , 1 ,,8 '% '(

! 1) /9!1% ,/%,1/ 7 ( , 8 $/ !%1'!!'

1) %, /( ! G) 8!

',) @A ./ '/ ,! 8/!, (( !: ! / 8!

1F(:

%' ! !D% !'

/(% , !') / !)8!

%(,8!

/$ GF@ ( ' '( GF@7!

%,,)(

! !D% !8 %1)( 6

!.!:/8/!, !!: % >=

>3@5 C ! / :,!: '

%, / ! ! 75!1 ,?3!>>% / !.7 /!!: /, 9!1% , 8!

!%3 /1) !'

C Admittedly, the deceased was 20 years of age and was unmarried and the cross-objectors namely Shanti Devi and Narata Ram are parents of the deceased. The accident in question took place on 12.10.2012. No reliable evidence is led by the cross-objectors/claimants in order to establish that the deceased was carpenter by profession or that his monthly income was 24,000/-. The oral testimony of PW3-Garib Dass, Ex-Sarpanch to the effect that he was running carpenter shop in village and the deceased was also working with him as a carpenter and was getting 16000/- per month as a salary remains uncorroborated and thus, was rightly disbelieved by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award.

However, it is settled position of law that in case of a deceased who was not earning or doing any job at the time of the accident/death, his income is to be determined on the basis of guess work. Taking into consideration the fact that the accident in question took place in the year 2012 and at that time, the deceased was aged about 20 years and prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and hearty and thus, even if the deceased was doing some manual labour, his income could be taken as 5000/- per month at the time of the accident/death. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased at the relevant time is assessed as 5000/- per month in place of 4500/- per month as was assessed by the learned Tribunal.

17.

As per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the deceased being bachelor, deduction should be 50% and not 1/3rd as has been assessed

by the learned Tribunal, the reason being the family of the deceased was not large. So, in the present case, the dependency of the cross objectors/claimants on the deceased is to be taken as one half. Thus, the monthly dependency of the claimants on the deceased in the present case comes out to be Rs.2500/- and their annual dependency comes out to be Rs.30,000/-.

18.

As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the determination of income of the deceased while computing compensation has also to include future prospects. In the instant case, the deceased being 20 years of age and having no fixed source of income or permanent job, an addition of 40% of the income should be made towards future prospectu. So, as per law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), an amount of Rs.12,000/- per annum is to be added in the aforesaid total annual dependency of Rs.30,000/-. So, total annual dependency of the claimants on the deceased comes out to be Rs.42,000/-.

19.

As per ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra), multiplier of 18 is to be applied in the present case in place of multiplier of 17 as has been applied by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award and in this manner, the amount comes out o be 7,56,000/-.

20.

As per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the parents are also entitled to get reasonable compensation under the conventional heads namely : -

Loss of Consortium - 40,000/- Funeral expenses - 15,000/- 21.

In the instant case, the claimants are not entitled not get any compensation under the head of loss of estate. However, the claimants are entitled to get in total 52,000/- on account of loss of consortium and 19,500/- as funeral expenses as per aforesaid settled law while taking into consideration that the amounts are to be enhanced @ 10% after every 3 years. Further, as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 2018 (4) RCR (Civil) 333 and Shri Ram General Insurance Company's case (supra), the claimants being parents of the deceased aged about 20 years are also entitled to get compensation worth 50,000/- on account of loss of love and affection. Further, the claimants are entitled to litigation expenses worth

= 1( ) 1,1) )!!8 2%:' ( 1)LM1,.%('&% ! 1%!,/ 60$ 1>13152,-,2,"$!+216$% 2%1, 23#!,2;$5/4,2' 1/16$% ,2%,2560$!

& &!!,

$ ,!:/ 1 ! %!7

1 !'!8/!, 12 !!,1) 1

,,8 / , !

, : 7 C7

= N 7C7

= O 7"

= ! (, 7

= (! !( , '(

! '% 1) /, 9!1% ,9//

'% '(

!!7C

= 1 '%

1) / , 9!1% , ! 1 ( ! 1) / !%

'( ) / , !D% ,/

! : 1) /, 9!1% , / !F '% ! 1 (!

/! ' /' /

!( !! ()

/! 2%:' 7 8!

/ / 9!1% , 9/ '

!!: !

! !1% , '% !'(1) /, 9!1% ,/ ,, '

! % , 3, ' !

/ '% 7 ! )7

, )(!

1) )/ ,,1 2%

9/ (( , !, 1) / !% '( ) ! /1) !'! 8/ / 12 !!,1) !(!

1 ' 8

9 $46$/&$!+ ;

% . =@ !

/<%'

A/ /( >!:= P=3 A/ /(

1, P=3