Jagroop Singh v. Rajinder Kaur And ORS
!"# #$%&''
& ()
*' *
+ )
!
" #!$ $ % &'()*+',-./ $ , % &'(+++',-./
0 " #! $ '! 1 % &'(+++',-./ $ ./! 1 % &'()*+',-./
# !$ #
# .2 .- ,-.*
+ ) ,' -./ $% &'()*+',-./ % &'(+++'
,-./" 4 $1 1 5 #" $!6 7!$1% &'()*+',-./
% &'()*+',-./ 6 $ 64 $ $$ 8 ,+ -/ ,-./"64 !! 9 1 6 ": $$; 6 ; ! 1 $ ! .22 $ ! !".(++" 64"!1 1$ ./"--"---<'"
< ./ " 1
$ !9 " )+4$ 1$!!
! 1 # $ % &'(+++',-./ $
!1 64 6 1 $ ./"--"---<'"64 1
$ $! ! 1 64 ! 1 < ./146 ! 9 $$; !;)+4$" 66 1 6 $ !
$6
5 1 4 !1"! 164 /-"---<' &
.* -+ ,-.. ! # 6 6 8'.) '
+>.." # 5 !!1 64 1 ?8 6-* .*
" 4!
8 @ " A"1 66 8',( '(>,* $$ ;$$ 6;"6 # 64
* % &'()*+',-./!1 1
$1 ! ! 6$ ! $
"6 ! 1 ?8 $$ 1 !! !" #"!!16
9 # 5 " " 1 $ !!
%B6 .)2".2 -+ ,-.." #$ $$ 6 * % &'
()*+',-./ $$ 6 64
. % &'()*+',-./
& 6 $ $ # !"
6 $ !1 1 $
./"--"---<' ' ./ '
.
4B !1 .-"---<'
,
40 !4 >*--<'
)
0 !4 (-"---<'
/
.* *
:$0 !4 (-"---7.*C .)"*-"---<'
% 7 2"---<'
>
: $ 9 1
.
//"---<'
+
91
./"--"---<'
# $ $$ 6 ! 4 #44 1 $!1 ! 1 ' . / " 1 !
$ !" ?2D
1"
1 $1 $$ $ E
: ! $ F $ $$ 6 !
64 6 ! 6 $$ # ! 6" 6 # 64 ! " !$! 64 !!64 6 1 4$G',<1 ?8 " "
# 4 : ! $ 61 ! ! 1 $ 1 ?8 "$ 1 " #"
$ E
5$ 61 1 ?8 6 1! 4
!! $ $ ! $!" # ! 1$!!
!! A!" !1 ! 1 4 "$ !! =
$ " ! 61 #
G'.< $ !1 !'
71 A !! A ! # " 6 $ G'
,<1 ?8
: ! $ 61 G'.< 1 6 !" !174
5 ! ! !1 !" 6 !$ 4$$ !1$ !" 6 !1$ !?
.-"---<' 4 " $"1 1 #6 #61 $ $ ! 64
& " ! $ " 61 164 ! "
61 !1
! ! 64 5 ;6 79 National Insurance Co. Vs. Pranay Sethi : 2017 SCC 270 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., 2018(4) RCR (Civil) 333.
Learned counsel further contends that a perusal of the testimony of PW-2/Kamaljit Singh @ Billu, who was accompanying the deceased at the time of the accident in question, clearly reveals that it was the driver of the offending vehicle, who came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side and collided with the bus of the deceased,
which was being driven on the correct side of the road. He further submits that since PW-2/Kamaljit Singh @ Billu also sustained injuries at the time of the accident in question, his presence stood proved and could not be doubted.
Learned counsel further contends that while awarding the compensation, the Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation qua loss of future prospectus. Besides this, the widow, two minor sons and the parents of the deceased, were also entitled to loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium, respectively, which had not been awarded to them. B # ! $ # 1 !
9 $ 41 61 164 ! $ F % &'()*+',-./"
$ $$ 6 !$! 64
$G',<1 ?8 " ! #
1$!! " $$ # !"
!1 H 1
$1 ! ! 6$ ! & !! $ $$ 64G',<1 ?8 " ! 1$ !! # # ! 1
!! A !! 6
91 761 $ " 9 $ $ ! ! 1 4
!1$ !" .-"---<' 6 " #" $!"6!" " 64 5 ;6 1 9" $
0 ! ! #6?/-D
$ " !1 $ $ 7 " 1 4 ! 1 64 9 8 $5 ;61 9 Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and
!"
"" ! 6 1 $ $ 1 '
5 ;619 Pranay Sethi's case (supra) = $ 1 1$ .*"---<'!
"6 $ $H$ 7 /-"---<'!
"$$! 1
$ " 6 $ 1 6$ 6! .-D
!1 $ #4 4 $" 6 .-D
!1 !1
! # " 6 645 ;6 19 Rasmita Biswal and others Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another : 2022(1) RCR(Civil) 344 Pranay Sethi's case(supra). Hence, the amount of compensation under the conventional heads stands modified to Rs.16,500/- each, for loss of estate & funeral expenses and Rs.44,000/- each for loss of consortium (spousal, parental and filial), for each of the claimants, who are the widow, two minor sons and parents of the deceased Chatinder Singh @ Rana.
Resultantly, t !1 46 6$ '
.
4B !1 .-"---<'
,
B !1 .,7.----C .",-"---<'
1 )
%!/-D .",-"---7/-<.--C /+"---<'
/
B !1 .",-"---I/+"---C ."2+"---<'
*
0! 7 .</ /,"---<'
: $
$
.",2"---<'
>
.* +
:$%
.",2"---7.*C .+"(-"---<'
(
: $ " $ ! 1 " 1 !
H //"---<'7*C ,",-"---<'
.-
% 7 .2"*--<'
..
:$ .2"*--<'
.,
91
,."/)"---<'
" $" 1$ ,."/)"---<'!1 ?+D
1$1 $$ $! 1 ! E
G 1 $ ! " $ % &'()*+'
,-./ 1 $ 64 % &'(+++'
,-./ $ 6#1
+ )
.2,