Punjab-Haryana High Court
United Insurance Company Limited vs Manish Thapa And Others on 15 December, 2022
FAO-4494-2022 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-4494-2022 (O&M)
Reserved on: 07.12.2022
Pronounced on:15.12.2022
United Insurance Company Ltd. ........ Appellant
Versus
Manish Thapa and Others ......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present:- Mr.Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate,
for the appellant- Insurance Company.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
CM-13702-CII-2022:
This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 48 days
in filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, which are
supported by an affidavit, sufficient cause has been shown for condoning
the delay on account of change of office, thus, the same is allowed and
delay of 48 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
MAIN CASE:
The present appeal lays challenge to an award dated
05.05.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Pathankot (in brevity, 'the Tribunal'), whereby compensation of
Rs.8,66,000/- has been awarded to respondent No.1 & 2/ claimants along
with interest @7.5% per annum.
Claim petition filed at the instance of respondent No.1 & 2, on
account of death of their mother Smt. Birla Thapa in an accident dated
ANIL KUMAR26.09.2019, was partly allowed by the learned Tribunal and after
2022.12.16 12:09
I attest to the accuracy and
FAO-4494-2022 (O&M)
considering her as a home maker and having assessed her income as
Rs.9,000/- per month, awarded compensation of Rs.8,66,000/-.
Being aggrieved against the award dated 05.05.2022, the
present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ Insurance Company
on the question of quantum of compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company
contends that assessment of notional income of deceased as Rs. 9,000/-
per month, is on higher side and therefore, award is liable to be modified. In
support of his contention, he places reliance upon "Rajendra Singh and
ors vs National Insurance Company Ltd. and ors" reported as 2020(3)
R.C.R(Civil) 26, in which the notional income of non earning housewife was
considered at Rs.5,000/- per month and also on "Kirti and anr vs Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd.", reported as 2021(1) R.C.R(Civil) 478, in which
the notional income was assessed at Rs.5,547/- per month. He also places
reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in "S.
Chandrasekharan and others vs M. Dinakar and another", reported as
2022(3) R.C.R (Civil) 845, to contend that deduction on account of
personal expenses has not been made in the present case and therefore,
on this account as well, the award is liable to be modified.
I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant- Insurance
Company, however, I am unable to accept his contentions. In Rajendra
Singh's case (supra), relied upon by him, accident took place in 2012 and
similarly, in Kirti's case (supra), accident took place in 2014, so if during
that period of time, income was assessed at Rs.5000-5500/-, then in the
present case, where the accident occurred in 2019, if the notional income,
on account of taking care of the family members, has been taken as
Rs.9000 it cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. Even in Kirti's
ANIL KUMAR
2022.12.16 12:09
I attest to the accuracy and
FAO-4494-2022 (O&M)
case (supra), it has been noted that different methods can be applied by
the courts to assess the income in such cases, depending up on the facts
and circumstance of particular case. It is further to be noted that the
minimum wages in 2019 were much higher than the notional income
assessed in the present case. Sight can also not be lost of the fact that in
case of a male person, even if there is no evidence regarding the income,
compensation is generally awarded after taking into consideration the
minimum wages prevailing at that time. In my considered opinion, as the
deceased was a non-earning female and her income has been quantified to
a modest amount which is even less than the minimum wages, no
interference is warranted in the monthly income assessed by the learned
Tribunal.
With respect to the argument of learned counsel for the
appellant- Insurance Company regarding the deduction on account of
personal expenses also, I do not find much substance. No doubt, in above
referred judgments, deduction has been made from the income, however it
is to be noted that in S. Chandrasekhran's case (supra) as well as in
Kirti's case (supra), monthly income of the deceased was assessed. In the
specific scenario of present case, regarding deduction on account of
personal expenses, when modest notional income has been assessed on
account of her multifarious services, judgment of division bench of this
Court in "Paramjit Singh and another vs Dilbagh Singh alias Bagga
and others" in FAO No. 3310 of 2012 decided on 16.05.2013, is more
applicable. In this judgment, it was held that when modest notional income
is assessed as monthly value of her services and not her monthly income,
the concept of deduction cannot be applied. In Rajendra Singh's case
(supra), this specific law point was neither raised nor discussed. In the
ANIL KUMAR
2022.12.16 12:09
I attest to the accuracy and
FAO-4494-2022 (O&M)
present case also, the income of the deceased on account of monthly
income from tailoring was not taken into the consideration and only notional
income was assessed on account of her multifarious services. The
judgments relied upon by the appellant/ Insurance Company can also be
differentiated on this account. Therefore, in my considered view, the
deduction of 1/3rd from her modest income assessed out of her notional
income is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appeal
filed on behalf of appellant/ Insurance Company is hereby dismissed in
limine.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
December 15 , 2022 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
anil JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
ANIL KUMAR
2022.12.16 12:09
I attest to the accuracy and
