High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/3262/2018disposed of

Ramandeep Kaur And ORS v. Raghbir Pal Singh & ORS

2022-11-09Mr. Justice Harminder Singh Madaan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH FAO-3262-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.11.2022 Ramandeep Kaur and others ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Raghbir Pal Singh and others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

!"#$ &&'' ( )

!"#$ &#! *# +++++ H.S. MADAAN , J. (Oral) On account of death of Charanjit Singh son of Sh. Satpal Singh, statedly aged about 29 years and working as a skilled mason with China State Construction Engineering Company at UAE, as such getting 300 AED i.e. Rs.54,000/- per month, in a road side accident which took place on 28.09.2016 at about 2.15 PM, in the area of village Ladda near Dhuri on account of rash and negligent driving of TATA Tempo vehicle bearing registration No.PB13-AB-5537 (for short 'the offending vehicle') by respondent No.1 Raghbir Pal Singh and such vehicle being owned by respondent No.2 Kanchan Singh and insured with respondent No.3 The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Sangrur, legal representatives of the deceased i.e. his widow Ms. Ramandeep Kaur aged about 28 years, minor daughter Amritpal Kaur, aged about 11 years and minor son Karanpreet Bawa, aged about 06 years had brought a claim petition under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against aforesaid driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle, impleading Mrs. Bhinder Kaur, mother of the deceased as proforma respondent No.4. 2.

That claim petition bearing No.MACT-37 of 2017 was contested by all the three respondents, however, vide award dated 12.09.2017, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur accepted the petition and granted compensation of Rs.29,45,000/- to claimants and proforma respondent No.4 with interest @ 7% p.a., payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. The apportionment of the compensation was also done which is detailed in the impugned award. However, the claimants did not feel satisfied with the award and have approached this Court by way of filing an appeal, notice of which was given to respondent No.3 and it has put in appearance through counsel. , !

$#('

& !

$#!

- .!

$#('

&&'' $/!

0&( !

!$!

0&'#2!

$#0&2 !

5- 6 & 0#

$($2 #1" 7 ('

##('2 /

$#0 #% !$!

6 %(0# # !!

# $

0!#2

0 #% '1 ' !

!#1 2 &8 9#(

!"## $"

5 : '!

$#('

&#! *#,($ 9#0&2 $#!!

!$!

$ ; #% ,!

# #!

#0 0 "

5- 6 & 0#

$($2 '

& #!

!# #

# # #1 !

$&$ 2 #( #(

% 7 ('

'2 !

$#0 #% !$!

# 6

$'(!

&#&$ ($ # %(' $ %#(!

($ &&#$ #% 7 ('

<#1" %

$# # , % !

7 ('

'2 /

#% !$!

# 6 & 0# $# !

%$ $ $(0$

$'(!

%$ / ''!

0# !

# # 34 0&'#2!

$#0&2 < 0&'#20

$#(2

1 $!

$# / #

$&$ 2 #( #(

% 0 $(

# (

($ 0&'#20 1#('!

$# (!

& #! 7 !$!

# ,!

% #0 0 &#'

%#0 ($ "#$ #

# $# !! 7 7 ('

2 /

# "

1 ''

%$#

'2 / &#' 0#'2

$#0 #% !$!

# 6 <#1" 7 ('

# 2 !!

# #1! &#&$ 7 #" # 6 & 0# $#"

# &#& &&#& 1 &8 9#(

(& !

&$ % $''2 #"!

$ !$!

'% 0&'#2!

# # % 8!

'2 !!

# #% -= #% '

$#0 #('!

" 1 !$!

'#1 #% - 2 , $ !$!

#( 2 ($ !!

# #% -= #%

$#0

- #('!

#1!

1# '2 ! !

# $' 0

> .!

$#('

$' 0 %( $#!!

Smt.Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., 2009(3) RCR(Civil)77, and reiterated in judgment Pranay Sethi (supra) in case where the deceased was married and number of dependent family members are 4 to 6, deduction should be 1/4th. The Tribunal had though considered the number of dependents to be 04 i.e. claimants and proforma respondent No.4, awarding compensation to all four of them but erroneously made deduction of 1/3rd which is applicable where number of dependent family members is 2 to 3.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has contended that mother of deceased though impleaded as proforma respondent was not dependent upon her, as such is not to be taken as legal heir of the deceased.

After hearing these contentions, I find that the Tribunal itself had taken the claimants as well as proforma respondent No.4 to be legal heirs of the deceased, awarding compensation to all four of them, therefore, deduction of 1/4th should have been made instead of 1/3rd. 10.

No other point was agitated by either of the counsel. 11.

Resultantly, the appeal succeeds. The amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is enhanced in the way that monthly income of deceased taken as Rs.20,000/- per month, 40% of the

5 amount is added as future prospects, total coming to Rs.28,000/- per month and deduction of 1/4th i.e. Rs.7000/-, the residue comes out to Rs.21,000/-. Multiplier of 17 has been rightly used by the Tribunal. The total compensation awarded comes out to Rs.42,84,000/-. Adding the compensation awarded under conventional heads of 2,25,000/-, the total compensation comes out to Rs.45,09,000/-. The rate of interest will remain as such at 7% p.a., as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition so would be the apportionment of compensation. The liability of the respondents would also remain intact in terms of the award passed by the Tribunal. It is clarified that the claimants would be entitled to get interest @ 7% on enhanced compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till actual realization.

12.

The appeal stands disposed of.

&'()(("

*+),- : &/ 6#!

*# : &#' @ *#