Roshni And ORS. v. Gautam Tiwari And ORS.
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:- 31.10.2019 Roshni and ors.
...Appellants
Versus
Gautam Tiwari & ors.
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Rakesh Lathwal, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Amit Kundra, Advocate for respondent No. 3 RITU BAHRI J. (Oral) 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, Sonepat (for short, 'the Tribunal') to the tune of Rs.15,73,000/- vide impugned award dated 28.02.2014 on account of death of Yashin Ali. 2.
As per claimants, on 24.06.2010, Yashin Ali (since deceased) along with his brother had gone to Panipat on their respective motorcycles They were returning to Samalkha and when they reached in front of Om Factory GT road within the area of village Zhattipur, a truck bearing No. HR38-H-4977 came from Panipat side and hit the motorcycle of Yashin Ali due to which he fell down and sustained head injuries and succumbed to his injuries on the spot. F.I.R No. 282 dated 24.06.2010 was registered. 3.
While assessing compensation, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.1,48,000/- per annum and 1/4th was deducted towards personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 13. Rs.1,00,000/- were
-2awarded on account of loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- were awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.5000/- were awarded towards loss of estate. The total compensation awarded to the claimants was Rs.15,73,000/-. 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 no future prospects have been awarded. 5.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondentdriver has vehemently opposed the present appeal. 6.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
7.
It is not in dispute between the parties that the accident had taken place, as the accident had been duly proved by the claimants/appellants.
8.
Further the children are also entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium, in view of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, 2018 (4) RCR Civil 837 .
9.
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 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
-3granted 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 fact-centric or quantum-centric.
-4rate 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.". 10.
In the present case, the compensation is being reassessed as per the judgments mentioned above :- Sr.
No.
Heads Calculations (i) Income Rs.1,48,000/- per annum (ii) 25% of (i) above to be added as future prospects= Rs.1,48,000+Rs.37000=Rs.1,85,000/- per annum (iii) 1/4th of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased= Rs.1,85,000-Rs.46250=Rs.1,38,750/- per annum (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 13 is applied Rs.1,38,750 X 13= Rs.18,03,750/- (v) Conventional heads (Loss of estate, funeral expenses) Rs.30,000/- (vi) Loss of consortium (wife) Rs.1,00,000/- (given by the Tribunal) as the payment has already been disbursed to the claimants (vii) Loss of consortium (children) Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) (viii) Total Compensation awarded Rs.20,93,750/- Enhanced amount of compensation 20,93,750-15,73,000=Rs.05,20,750/- (rounded off to Rs.5,20,000/-) 11.
The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.05,20,000/- 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 in view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4528-2019 titled as Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara vs. Shyam Singh Varma and ors, decided on 01.05.2019.
12.
Accordingly, the award stands modified to the above extent and the present appeal is partly allowed.
31.10.2019 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No