Asha Rani And ANR v. Yashpal Singh And ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:- 14.02.2018 Asha Rani and others ...Appellants

Versus

Yashpal Singh and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Vishal Munjal, Advocate for the appellants Mr Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company.

RITU BAHRI J. (Oral) C.M. No. 26309-CII-2015 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 108 days in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

F.A.O No. 8325-2015 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, Pathankot (for short, 'the Tribunal') to the tune of Rs.05,97,000/- vide impugned award dated 30.03.2015.

2.

The facts which are not in dispute are that on 18.03.2010, the deceased was going on motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-58-F-8032 from Pathankot to Mukerian along with pillion driver Suresh Singh and was being followed by Prem Chand, who was following them on the scooter of one Rakesh Kumar. When they reached near village Kolian Tehsil Mukerian, the offending truck bearing registration No. HR-38-E-1552 came

-2from Pathankot side, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle from the back side and deceased along with pillion rider fell on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. The deceased was shifted to Civil Hospital Mukerian and then shifted to Civil Hospital, Pathankot. However, the deceased died on 22.03.2010. F.I.R was also registered in this regard. 3.

As per the Tribunal, the deceased-Manjit Singh in the present case was 25 years old at the time of the accident. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- per month and 1⁄2 was deducted towards personal expenses and thereafter, applied the multiplier of 18, in view of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) Page 77. The claimants were awarded Rs.20000/- for the last rites and transportation and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded to the claimant was Rs.5,97,000/-. However, respondent No. 3 was granted the recovery rights.

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. 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

-3- (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. 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.

-4amount 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.".

7.

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

No.

Heads Calculations (i) Salary Rs.4500/- per month (ii) 40% of (i) above to be added as future prospects= Rs.4500+Rs.1800=Rs.6300/- per month (iii) 1⁄2 of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased= Rs.6300-Rs.3150=Rs.3150/- per month (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied Rs.3150 X 12 X 18= Rs.06,80,400/- (v) Conventional heads (Loss of estate and funeral expenses) Rs.30,000/- (vi) Total Compensation awarded Rs.07,10,400/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.07,10,400-Rs.05,97,000=Rs.1,13,400/- (rounded off to Rs.1,13,000/-) 9.

The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,13,000/- 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 from the date of filing of the claim petition, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Kumari Kiran through her father Harinarayan vs. Sajjan Singh and others, 2015(1) SCC 539. The remaining conditions of disbursal of amount and recovery rights shall remain unaltered.

10.

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

14.02.2018 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No