Surinder Kaur And ORS v. Harbans Singh And ORS
2023:PHHC:067938 Page 1 of 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-3544-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.05.2023 Surinder Kaur & Others ...Appellant(s) Vs. Harbans Singh & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for respondent No.3.
*** NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-12410-CII-2018 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the appeal.
After going through the contents of the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions. MAIN APPEAL Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.11,62,000/- granted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal") vide Award dated 04.09.2017
2023:PHHC:067938 Page 2 of 5 passed in MAC Petition RBT No.56 of 2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The three claimants are the parents, and major unmarried sister of deceased-Mandeep Singh who was aged about 27 years at the time of death.
2.
Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Mandeep Singh had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 23.01.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration No.PB-08BC-9426 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. Learned Tribunal granted compensation as above along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till realisation. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. 3.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation inter alia on the grounds:
a) that at the time of death, deceased was a Generator Mechanic and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. It is submitted that PW1/appellant-claimant No.1/mother of the deceased has duly mentioned the said fact in her affidavit (Exhibit PA). It is submitted that though admittedly, PW1 did not have any documentary proof regarding income of her deceased son however, in view of the categoric assertion
2023:PHHC:067938 Page 3 of 5 on part of the claimants in this respect, it is submitted that income of the deceased should have been taken as at least that of a skilled labourer, whereas learned Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as that of an unskilled labourer as only Rs.7,458.56/- per month. It is submitted that as per relevant Minimum Wage Notification, minimum wages admissible to a semi-skilled labourer are Rs.8,238/- per month, and that to a skilled labourer are Rs.9,135/- per month; b) that sum of only Rs.20,000/- has been granted under conventional heads. In support, learned counsel relies upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav (SC) Law Finder Doc ID # 1888548. 4.
In response, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company that future prospects have been granted on higher side. It is submitted that nothing has been produced by the claimants to prove income or employment of the deceased. 5.
No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. 6.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7.
Perusal of record of the case shows that claimant No.1/mother of the deceased had appeared as PW1 and specifically stated in her affidavit (Exhibit PA) that the deceased was working as a Generator Mechanic. Though admittedly, there is no documentary proof of the alleged income of the deceased to be Rs.15,000/- per month, however, in my view, there is no reason to doubt the submission made by the claimants on affidavit. Accordingly, in my view, in the present case
2023:PHHC:067938 Page 4 of 5 it would serve the ends of justice to take income of the deceased as that of a semi-skilled labourer as Rs.8,238/- rounded off to Rs.8,240/- per month.
8.
Age of the deceased was proven to be 27 years at the time of death on the basis of his Aadhaar card wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 24.04.1989. Accordingly, an addition of 40% is to be made towards future prospects, and not 50% as done by the Tribunal. As the deceased was bachelor at the time of death, learned Tribunal correctly made a deduction of 50% towards personal expenses. Multiplier of 17 has been correctly applied. However, learned Tribunal is in error in granting only Rs.20,000/- under conventional heads whereas as per law, the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads. Therefore, compensation as admissible to the claimants is reworked as follows:- Heads By MACT By this Court Income Rs.7,458.56/- per month Rs.8,240/- per month Future prospects (50%) (40%) Rs.8,240/- + Rs.3,296/- = Rs.11,536/- Deduction (50%) (50%) Rs.11,536/- - Rs.5,768/- = Rs.5,768/- Multiplier (17)
(17) Rs.69,216/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.11,76,672/- Conventional heads Rs.20,000/- 77,000/- Total Rs.11,61,159/- (rounded off to Rs.11,62,000/-) Rs.12,53,672/-
2023:PHHC:067938 Page 5 of 5 9.
Interest @ 7.5% as granted by the learned Tribunal is maintained. Ratio of apportionment and manner of disbursement of compensation as determined by the Tribunal is maintained. 10.
Present appeal accordingly, stands allowed in above terms.
11.
Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 10.05.2023 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No