Harjinder Kaur & ORS v. Subash Chand & ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O No. 9501 of 2014 Date of decision:- 24.10.2019 Harjinder Kaur and ors.

...Appellants

Versus

Subash Chand & ors.

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Banga, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 3 RITU BAHRI J. (Oral) 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, Amritsar (for short, 'the Tribunal') to the tune of Rs.07,76,000/- vide impugned award dated 13.11.2013 on account of death of Balkar Singh. 2.

As per claimants, on 25.12.2011, Balkar Singh (since deceased) was travelling in Tata 709 bearing No. HR-37A-3209. When the vehicle reached Jattana Niwan near Gurdwara Baba Hari Singh, Khamano, the driver had stopped the vehicle on one side of the road on kacha path and the occupants of the vehicle alighted for urinating in the fields. After urinating, Balkar Singh was standing on the katcha berm on the correct left hand side of the road. At that time, a tata vehicle bearing No. PB-32-L-2071 being driven by respondent No. 1 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against Balkar Singh. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Khamano where

-2doctor declared him dead. F.I.R No. 128 dated 26.12.2011 under Section 279/304-A IPC was registered with Police Station Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

3.

While assessing compensation, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month and 1/4th was deducted towards personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 14. Rs.10,000/- were awarded on account of consortium, Rs.5,000/- were awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.5000/- were awarded towards loss of estate. The total compensation awarded to the claimants was Rs.07,76,000/-. 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, as no future prospects have been awarded. 5.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondentdriver has vehemently opposed the present appeal. 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

7.

It is not in dispute between the parties that the accident had taken place, as the accident had been duly proved by the claimants/appellants.

8.

Further the children are also entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium, in view of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, 2018 (4) RCR Civil 837 .

9.

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

-3Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, passed in Spl Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on October 31, 2017 wherein the issue with 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.

-4funeral 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 fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every 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.". 10.

In the present case, the compensation is being reassessed as per the judgments mentioned above :- Sr.

No.

Heads Calculations (i) Income Rs.6000/- per month (ii) 25% of (i) above to be added as future prospects= Rs.6000+Rs.1500=Rs.7500/- per month (iii) 1/4th of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased= Rs.7500-Rs.1875=Rs.5625/- per month (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 14 is applied Rs.5625X 12 X 14= Rs.09,45,000/- (v) Conventional heads (Loss of estate, funeral expenses, consortium) Rs.70,000/- (vi) Loss of consortium (children) Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) (vii) Total Compensation awarded Rs.11,75,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation 11,75,000-07,56,000=Rs.04,19,000/- 11.

The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.04,19,000/- shall be payable within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The appellants shall also get interest @ 9% per annum in view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4528-2019 titled as Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara vs. Shyam Singh Varma and ors, decided on 01.05.2019.

-512.

Accordingly, the award stands modified to the above extent and the present appeal is partly allowed.

24.10.2019 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No