Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Paramjit Kour W/O Late Sh vs National Insurance Co. Ltd on 1 May, 2024
Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
MA No. 482/2012
Reserved on : 23.04.2024
Pronounced on : 1 . 05 .2024
1. Paramjit Kour W/o Late Sh. .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Bachan Singh
2. Jagroop Singh S/o Late Sh.
Bachan Singh
3. Jyoti Bala D/o Late Sh. Bachan
Singh
4. Bhagwant Singh S/o Late Sh.
Bachan Singh
5. Suman Bala D/o Late Sh. Bachan
Singh
6. Jung Bahadur Singh So Munsha
Singh all R/o Kalanor, District
Gurdaspur A/P Dasmesh Nagar,
Digiana Jammu.
Through:- Mr. A. S. Azad, Advocate
V/s
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. .....Respondent(s)
2. Mukesh Sharma S/o Ramesh
Kumar Sharma R/o Indira Colony,
Gali No. 5 Pathankot (owner of Tata
LPT No. PB05G-9961)
3. Vijay Kumar S/o Ram Singh R/o
Village Sarna Pathankote, (driver of
Tata LPT No. PB05G-9961.
Through:- None
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. The claimants/appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased-
Bachan Singh, have filed this appeal against Award dated 04.07.2012 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Jammu (for short "Tribunal")in a
claim petition, bearing File No.576/Claim titled as Paramjit Kour and ors. v.
National Insurance Company Ltd. &ors. and for setting-aside the same.
They are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to them.
02. A claim petition was filed by petitioners before the Tribunal, Jammu
seeking compensation on account of the death of Bachan Singh in a motor
vehicular accident. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,73,000/- as
compensation in their favour and the said amount of compensation was
awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till its realization.
03. The grievance of the claimants is that the Tribunal has wrongly
assessed the compensation by taking the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.6,000/-per month whereas it has been brought in evidence that the
deceased was working as a Mason and his daily wages were Rs. 400/- per
day and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have calculated/assessed the
compensation by taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-
per month. However, the claimants are claiming compensation of
Rs.10,53,000/-.
04. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
05. On 25.11.2010, Bachan Singh was travelling on his bicycle from
Dashmesh Nagar, Digiana to Satwari and at about 5:00 p.m., when he
reached Gangyal, his bicycle was hit by rashly and negligently driven
vehicle bearing Registration No.PB05G/9961, which was being driven by
driver/respondent No.3 and because of the accident, he suffered fatal injuries
which led to his death.
06. In the claim petition, the appellants/claimants claimed compensation
of Rs.32.00 lakhs. They claimed that the deceased was a Mason by
profession and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The Tribunal while
determining the compensation payable to the legal heirs of the deceased took
the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- and determined the
compensation and awarded the compensation of Rs.6,73,000/-. The
compensation assessed by the Tribunal is as under: -
i. For loss of dependency : Rs.6,48,000.00
ii. Funeral Expenses : Rs. 5,000.00
iii. For loss of Estate : Rs. 10,000.00
iv. For loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 : Rs. 10,000.00
Total : Rs.6,73,000.00
07. In this appeal, what is to be determined is as to whether the Tribunal
has rightly taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- or was
their evidence to establish that the monthly income of the deceased was
Rs.12,000/-. The only evidence produced before the Tribunal by the
claimantswas a statement which was of Paramjit Kour, who is the wife of
the deceased. In her statement,she has stated that her husband was a Mason
and was earning Rs.400/- per day. However, in cross-examination, she has
made a statement that he would not get any work during rains etc. This is the
only evidence, on the basis of which,this Court has to determine what should
be income of the deceased. To establish that the deceased was a Mason and
was earning Rs.400/- per day, the statement of Paramjit Kour is not
sufficient evidence to hold so. Even if he was working as a Mason, he was
not having the regular income throughout the months. This witness has
stated that her husband would not get the work or would not earn during the
rain etc. There is, thus, no evidence to establish that he was having regular
income. Had therebeen evidence that the deceased was regularly having the
work and had regular income or had there been any proof documentary or
otherwise, then one would say that he had regular income.
08. There is no convincing or cogent evidence to hold that the deceased
was a Mason, having regular income of Rs. 400/- per day, therefore, in such
a situation, having regard to the occupation of the deceased, it is the income
orrate of wages of skilled worker which could be taken as monthly income
of the deceased and that is Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal while appreciating the
evidence had rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- and
convincing reasons have been given by the Tribunal by taking such income
as monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of determining the loss of
dependency of the claimants, therefore, no fault can be found with the
finding(s) of the deceased so far as the income of the deceased as determined
by the Tribunalis concerned.
09. This finding of the Tribunal vis-à-vis calculation of income and
quantum of compensation given by it is, accordingly, upheld inasmuch as
there is no convincing evidence produced by claimants before the Tribunal.
In such circumstances the claim of the appellants made in this appeal is
without any basis,and as a result whereofthe claim of the appellants that
monthly income of the deceased was to be taken as Rs.9,000/- per month is
without any basis. There is, thus, no merit in the submissions of learned
counsel for the appellants so far as the income claimed in this appeal is
concerned.
10. When submissions of counsel for appellants are tested on the
touchstone of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation, 2009 AIR (SC) 3104 and National Insurance
Company v. Pranay Sethi AIR 2017 SC 5157, the same seem to be
misconceived. The Tribunal has in detail discussed all the aspects of the
matter concerning calculation of compensation to be granted in favour of
claimants.
11. It is worthwhile to mention here that that there cannot be actual
compensation for anguish of heart or for mental tribulations. The quint
essentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has
to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stipulates that there should be grant of "just
compensation". Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine
"just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and
simultaneously, should not be a pittance. [Vide: K. Suresh v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 12 SCC 274].
12. The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is only to the extent of
monthly income of the deceased and it is on the basis of claim made in this
appeal that the appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensation.
Thus as the submission and the claim regarding monthly income of the
deceased made in this appeal is rejected, there is no merit in the instant
appeal and the award passed by the Tribunal is upheld. This appeal is
dismissed, as such.
(Vinod Chatterji Koul)
Judge
JAMMU
RAM MURTI
1. 5 .2024
Whether the order is reportable:Yes/No
