Shimla And ANR v. Shahzab And Others

FAO No.3562 of 2017(O&M) [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3562 of 2017(O&M) Date of Decision: July 18 , 2019.

Shimla and another ...... APPELLANT (s)

Versus

Shahzab and others ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the appellants.

***** LISA GILL, J.

This appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to them vide by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Tribunal') impugned award dated 03.01.2017.

A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was filed by the claimants seeking compensation on account of the death of Dharam Singh, aged 60 years, in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 22.11.2015. Learned Tribunal on considering the evidence on record held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of bus No. PB-02W-9985 by respondent No.1. Learned Tribunal assessed income of the deceased to be `5,813/- per month per month with reference to the minimum wage available to an unskilled labourer in August 2015 in the State of Haryana. It is held that there is no evidence on record to prove the vocation or exact income of the deceased. OMKAR SINGH 2019.07.24 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

FAO No.3562 of 2017(O&M) [2] Learned Tribunal awarded a total sum of `8,47,930/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% p.a., to the claimants, which is detailed as hereunder:- Income 5,813 p.m.

Future prospects @ 30% 5,813+1,744 = 7,557 1/3rd deduction 7,557 - 2,519 = 5,038 Multiplicand 5,038 x12 = 60,456 Multiplier of 9 60,456 x 9 = 5,44,104 Loss of consortium 1,00,000 Loss of love and affection 1,00,000 Funeral expenses 25,000 Medical expenses 78,826 Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to deny that there is no evidence on record to indicate that the deceased was earning an income, higher than as assessed by the learned Tribunal. He is unable to point out any ground, whatsoever, for enhancement of the compensation already awarded by the learned Tribunal, especially in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(16) SCC 680.

No other argument has been raised.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground, whatsoever, to interfere in the impugned award dated 03.01.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat for enhancement of the compensation awarded to the claimants.

Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost. ( LISA GILL ) July 18 , 2019.

JUDGE 'om'

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No OMKAR SINGH 2019.07.24 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh