Panchma Kumari And Others vs Raj Kumar And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 257 j&K

                                                     Sr. No. 120

     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU

                                       Pronounced on : 23.02.2022
                                                 MA No. 239/2011

Panchma Kumari and others                            ....Petitioner(s)

                     Through: Mr. R.K.Bhatia, Advocate.
                Vs

Raj Kumar and others                                  .....Respondent(s)

                     Through: Mr. Vipan Gandotra, Advocate.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
                             JUDGMENT

1. In the claim petition filed by the appellants herein against the

respondents for compensation on account of death of Harbans Lal,

husband of appellant No.1, father and son of appellant Nos. 2 & 3

respectively of said Harbans Lal, in a motor vehicle accident, the

learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu awarded

compensation to the tune of Rs.11,28,000/- along with the interest

@ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the

amount is liquidated. The appellants seek enhancement of the

compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has not taken into

consideration future promotional prospects of the deceased while

awarding the compensation, the multiplier has also been wrongly

applied by the Tribunal while taking into consideration the age of

the victim and lastly no compensation for loss of estate, love and

affection has been awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the

appellants.

2. The respondent No.3/Insurance Company, insurer of the vehicle

in question, has appeared through counsel and has contested the

appeal arguing that the award is as per law and the appellants have

no case to seek enhancement of the compensation.

3. The respondent-insurer company has not challenged the award.

4. The appellant was serving as Naik in the Indian Army at the time

of his death and the age of the deceased was 28 years at the time

of accident the same cannot be disputed as the Insurance

Company, as stated above, has not filed the appeal against the

findings and the award given by the Tribunal.

5. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15 while assessing

compensation in favour of the appellants. The court is of the view

that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is erroneous keeping in

view the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma

versus Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others,

AIR 2017 (SC) 5157. As per the aforesaid judgments, the

multiplier of 17 is required to be applied instead of 15 as applied

by the Tribunal while taking into consideration the age of the

deceased at the time of the death. The Tribunal though holding

that the multiplier of 17 is required to be applied yet slashed down

the multiplier to 15 without any reason and cannot be sustained.

6. As far as the grant of compensation on account of future prospects

is concerned and of which the argument is raised that the

promotional aspects have been ignored as there is considerable

increase in 6th Pay Commission qua the armed forces the Tribunal

has held that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.8200/- per

month at the time of the accident and deducted 1/3rd on account of

personal expenses of the deceased and thus calculated the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.6100/-. In Sarla Verma's case

(supra) the court in a situation like the present one did not find

favour with the argument raised on behalf of the claimants in that

case that the actual enhanced pay revision should be calculated

while assessing the future salary prospects of the deceased person.

In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that

where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of

40 years an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the

deceased towards future prospects should be taken into

consideration.

7. This court keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court

grants an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the

deceased which has been assessed to the tune of Rs.6100/- per

month by the Tribunal after deduction on account of dependency

factor. Thus, the appellants are entitled to compensation on

aforesaid account to the tune of Rs.9600-/- x 12 x 17 =

Rs.19,58,400/-.

8. The appellants shall also be entitled to compensation on account

of loss of estate to the tune of Rs.15,000/-, funeral expenses to the

tune of Rs.15,000/- and loss of spouse consortium to the tune of

Rs.40,000/- and parental compensation also @ Rs.40,000/-. Thus,

the total compensation to which the appellants are held entitled to

from the insurance company-respondent comes to Rs.20,68,400/-

rounding to Rs.20,68,000-/-. The appellants are also held entitled

to interest @ 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal till the

amount is realized. Out of the aforesaid compensation, the

appellant wife shall be entitled to Rs.10,00,000/-, minor daughter

shall be entitled to Rs.08,00,000/- and her share shall be kept in

Fixed Deposit in a Bank till she attains majority. Rest of the

amount awarded shall go to the mother of the deceased. They

shall also be entitled to interest accrued on the compensation

awarded proportionately to the amount respectively awarded in

their favour. The amount, if any, received by the petitioners shall

stand adjusted against the sum awarded by this Court.

9. Disposed of.

(Puneet Gupta) Judge Jammu 23.02.2022 Pawan Chopra

Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No

PAWAN CHOPRA 2022.02.24 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document