Meva Rani & ANR v. Randhir Singh & ANR

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:- 11.05.2018 Meva Rani and anr.

...Appellants

Versus

Randhir Singh and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Vijay Saini, Advocate, for the appellants Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No. 3 RITU BAHRI J. (Oral) 1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimantappellant, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, 'the Tribunal') to the tune of Rs.07,68,000/- vide impugned award dated 22.11.2016.

2.

The facts which are not in dispute are that on 30.12.2015, deceased Kuldeep Singh along with his friend Karan had gone to village Dabkoli on motorcycle bearing No. HR75-4823. When they were returning back to Indri and reached little ahead of culvert of village Garhpur Khalasa, then respondent No. 1 while driving motor cycle No. HR05AQ-9456 rashly, negligently came from behind and hit the motorcycle of the deceased. Kuldeep Singh suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries. F.I.R No. 562 dated 31.12.2015 was also registered in this regard under Section 304-A/279/ IPC at P.S. Indri.

3.

As per the Tribunal, the deceased-Kuldeep Singh in the present

-2case was 20 years old at the time of the accident. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month and added 50% future prospects. 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. Rs.1,00,000/- were awarded towards loss of love and affection and Rs.20,000/- were awarded towards funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded to the claimant was Rs.07,68,000/-. 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 the Tribunal has taken the income on the lower side as the minimum wages at the time of death of the deceased of a unskilled worker was Rs.8000/- per month.

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.

The learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month as the minimum wages of unskilled worker was Rs.8000/- per month at the time of the accident. 8.

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 (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

-3authoritatively 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.

-4or 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.". 9.

In the present case, the compensation is being reassessed as per the judgments mentioned above by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.8000/- per month.

Sr.

No.

Heads Calculations (i) Income Rs.8000/- per month (ii) 40% of (i) above to be added as future prospects= Rs.8000+Rs.3200=Rs.11200/- per month (iii) 1/2 of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased= Rs.11200-Rs.5600=Rs.5600/- per month (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied Rs.5600X 12 X 18= Rs.12,09,600/- (v) Conventional heads (Loss of estate and funeral expenses) Rs.30,000/- (vi) Total Compensation awarded Rs.12,39,600/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.12,39,600-Rs.07,68,000=Rs.4,71,600/-) rounded of to Rs.4,72,000/- 10.

The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.4,72,000/- 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 @ 7.5% 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 Shri Nagar Mal and ors vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and others, passed in Civil Appeal No. 448-2018., decided on 19.01.2018. The remaining conditions of disbursal of amount and recovery rights shall remain unaltered. 11.

Accordingly, the award stands modified to the above extent and

-5the present appeal is partly allowed.

11.05.2018 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No