Punjab-Haryana High Court
Geeta Devi & Ors vs Madan Lal & Ors on 15 December, 2022
295
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-4212-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 15, 2022
Geeta Devi and others
....Appellants
Versus
Madan Lal and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present:- Mr.A.K.Yadav, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.Rajbir Singh, Advocate for
Mr.Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
*****
ARCHANA PURI, J
Challenge in the present appeal is to the Award dated
25.02.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby,
compensation has been granted to the appellants-claimants, on account of
death of Jogender Singh, in a motor vehicular accident.
On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, vide impugned
Award, learned Tribunal, had granted compensation to the extent of
Rs.7,29,800/- to the appellants-claimants. Even, the liability of the
respondents, i.e. driver, owner and insurance company, was held to be joint
and several
Being dissatisfied with the extent of compensation, so granted,
the appellants-claimants have filed the present appeal, thereby, seeking
1 of 7
extensive enhancement of the compensation.
As per the version of the appellants-claimants, on 28.03.2013,
Jogender Singh was travelling in a three wheeler bearing registration
No.HR-47B-7205, being driven by respondent No.1-Madan Lal, in a rash
and negligent manner and at a high speed. At about 12.30-1.00 p.m., when
the vehicle reached ahead of Saharanwas bus stand, near Shashi Bhushan
Bhatta, Jogender Singh fell from the three wheeler on the road and sustained
injuries and died, while he was on the way to hospital. It is specific claim
the appellants-claimants that the accident taken place due to the rashness
and negligence, on the part of respondent No.1-Madan Lal, while driving
the offending vehicle.
In reply, respondents No.1 and 2 have denied the factum of
accident and involvement of the vehicle in question. Even, the insurance
company, in its separate reply, had denied about the accident and
involvement of the vehicle in question.
To so substantiate the imputation of rashness and negligence, at
the behest of respondent No.1, Rajesh Kumar has been examined as PW-5
by the appellants, who deposed about having witnessed the accident in
question and he has deposed about the manner of accident, caused due to
rashness and negligence, on the part of respondent No.1, driver of three
wheeler and the same resulted into injuries, on the person of Jogender
Singh, which proved fatal.
Even, PW-1 EHC Virender Singh has brought the record
relating to FIR No.63 dated 28.03.2013 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC, got
registered and also deposed about the challan already having been presented
2 of 7
against Madan Lal, before the Illaqa Magistrate. Copy of FIR is Ex.PW1/A
and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is Ex.PW4/D. Even, the post-mortem
report is Ex.PW4/C.
It is pertinent to mention that though respondents have denied
the accident in toto, but however, to so substantiate this plea of denial, no
evidence of any kind, has been brought on record. Even, respondent No.1-
Madan Lal, in the capacity of being driver of the alleged three wheeler,
would have been the best person, to so substantiate this plea of denial, but
however, he had chosen to remain away from the witness box. Thus,
considering the evidence adduced, at the behest of the appellants-claimants,
the fact of accident and imputation of rashness and negligence, as asserted,
stands amply established. Moreover, the driver, owner as well as the
insurance company, have not chosen to file any appeal against the aforesaid
findings. Considering the same, the findings, so recorded by learned
Tribunal, has thus attained finality.
In this backdrop, now let us consider the compensation, to be
so granted to the appellants-claimants. It is specific assertion of the
appellants about Jogender Singh, deceased to be working at Nisha Tent
House at Nangal Mundi and that he was earning Rs.11,000/- per month.
PW-3 Satbir Yadav has been examined, who has deposed about the
deceased to be working as Generator Operator and that he was also doing
the job of lighting and generator work, at his tent house and having salary of
Rs.11,400/- per month. However, it was rightly observed by learned
Tribunal that no document, relating to ownership of PW-3 Satbir Singh qua
the tent house as well as relating to the employment of the deceased and the
3 of 7
extent of earning, so disbursed to the deceased as well as to his other
employees, has been brought on record. Even, the record relating to his
income tax, has not been proved. Considering the same, the assertion of the
earnings of the deceased to be Rs.11,400/- has been rightly discarded.
However, learned Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased to
be Rs.4,200/-, at the relevant time. Considering the minimum wages
prevalent, at the relevant time, this extent of earnings has been taken on
lower side. In the fitness of the circumstances, the earnings of the deceased
are taken to be Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, it requires 40% addition, on
the count of 'future prospects', as per guidelines laid down in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR
(Civil) 1009 and by doing so, the total earnings comes to be Rs.8,400/-.
The appellants-claimants, who are dependent upon the
deceased are four in number and thus, as per the guidelines laid down in
Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR
(Civil) 77, the deduction, on account of personal and living expenses, has to
be made to the extent of 1/4th. After deducting 1/4th, the loss of dependency
comes to be Rs.8400-1/4th=Rs.6,300/- i.e. Rs.75,600/- per annum.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that deceased
Jogender Singh was asserted to be 29 years old, at the time of accident.
However, learned Tribunal, considering the recitals as mentioned in the
post-mortem report Ex.PW4/C, had taken the age of the deceased as 32
years. It has also been specifically observed by learned Tribunal that there
is no other documentary evidence, in support of age of Jogender Singh.
However, this observation is palpably wrong.
4 of 7
Perusal of the record reveals that the school certificate of the
deceased has been proved as PW-4/B, whereby, the date of birth of
Jogender Singh has been mentioned as 05.08.1983. This document had
come into existence, much prior to the date of death of Jogender Singh and
therefore, it cannot be discarded. Taking the same into consideration, the
age of the deceased, at the relevant time, is taken to be about 29½ years.
Considering this to be the age of the deceased Jogender Singh, the
appropriate multiplier as per guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma's case
(supra) is '17' instead of '16', as so applied by the Tribunal. Thus, the loss
of dependency is worked upon as Rs.75,600x17=Rs.12,85,200/-.
Besides the aforesaid, it is pertinent to mention that in Magma
General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and
others, 2018(18) SCC 130 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs.
Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and others, 2020 SCC Online 410, it
has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that consortium is not
limited to 'spousal consortium' and it also includes 'parental consortium'
and 'filial consortium'. It was held that apart from spousal consortium,
parental and filial consortium is also payable. Endorsing this view, in The
New Assurance Company Limited vs. Smt.Somwati and others, Civil
Appeal No.3093 of 2020, decided on 07.09.2020, the conclusion given in
the impugned judgment of the High Court, awarding consortium to each of
the claimants, was held to be in accordance with law, which does not
warrant any interference in the case under consideration.
In Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the extent of consortium, which
should be paid, is stated to be Rs.40,000/-, for the loss of estate, it is
5 of 7
Rs.15,000/- as well as for the funeral expenses, it is Rs.15,000/-. It was
further held in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) that the aforesaid amount should
be enhanced by 10% after every three years. As the said judgment is dated
31.10.2017, so there has to be enhancement of 10% in each of these
conventional heads, which comes to be Rs.44,000/- as loss of consortium,
which is to be paid to each of the appellants-claimants, Rs.16,500/- as loss
of estate and Rs.16,500/- as funeral expenses.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
appellants has submitted that appellants are also entitled to compensation,
on the count of 'loss of love and affection'. But however, it is pertinent to
make reference to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Magma's case (supra), wherein, it is laid down that 'loss of love and
affection is comprehended in loss of consortium'. Hence, there is no
justification to award compensation towards 'loss of love and affection', as a
separate head, which view was further endorsed in Somwati's case (supra).
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the compensation to be
granted to the appellants-claimants, is hereby re-appraised as herein given:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.12,85,200/-
Loss of consortium : Rs.1,76,000/-
(Rs.44,000x4)
Funeral expenses : Rs.16,500/-
Loss of estate : Rs.16,500/-
Total : Rs.14,94,200/-
As such, the enhanced compensation, after the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal comes to be Rs.14,94,200-7,29,800=Rs.7,64,400/-.
Out of the said enhanced amount, a sum of Rs.2 lakh
6 of 7
each, be disbursed to appellants-claimants No.1 to 3 (widow and children of
the deceased and residue amount of Rs.1,64,400/-, be disbursed to
appellant-claimant No.4 (mother of the deceased). The impugned Award
dated 25.02.2014 stands modified, to the extent, as indicated aforesaid. The
remaining terms of the impugned Award shall remain the same.
With the above observations, the present appeal stands allowed.
December 15, 2022 (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
