Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar And Ors vs Sunil Kumar Mishra And Ors on 15 December, 2022
1
FAO-3462-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
251 FAO-3462-2022
Date of decision: 15.12.2022
RAJ KUMAR AND ORS. ..Appellant (s)
Versus
SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. ..Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the appellants.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J (Oral)
This is an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation of
Rs.23,10,028/- awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Yamuna
Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in MACT No.244 of
2019 vide Awarddated 22.03.2022.
The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence and pleadings
before it concluded that the deceased Smt. Kshama Rani had died due to
the injuries sustained by her in the accident in question that took place due
to the rash negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration HR - 38 T -
5979 by respondent no. 1.
The claimants/appellants are the 62 year old husband, and the
two major sons aged 31 and 33 years, of the deceased Smt. Kshama Rani.
The first submission made on behalf of the appellants is that appellants
No.2 and 3 (31 and 33 years of age) sons of the deceased were also
entitled to the consortium. However, learned counsel is unable to show
any judgment in support of his submission that grown sons, who are not
dependent on the deceased are also entitled to consortium. Second
contention of learned counsel is that the Tribunal has taken income of the
1 of 3
FAO-3462-2022
deceased on the lower side. The impugned Award is not assailed on any
other ground.
I have heard ld. Counsel for the appellants as also perused
the record.
A perusal of the Award shows that the deceased was a retired
JBT Teacher and was drawing a pension of Rs.33,600/- per month as
evident from revised pension orders Ex. P3 and P4. It was also submitted
by learned counsel for the claimants before the Tribunal that she was
having agricultural land as is evident from Jamabandis for the year 2014-
15 as well as 2015-16 Ex. P23 and P24 respectively. The Tribunal on the
basis of income tax return for the year 2019-20 Ex.P16 which showed the
gross total income of the deceased to be Rs.4,97,967/-, took the monthly
income of the deceased to be Rs.40,000/-. Though the appellants no. 2 and
3 were admittedly independent and having their own sources of income,
yet the ld. Tribunal took them to be dependents and made a deduction of
1/3rd towards personal expenses and calculated annual loss of dependency
as 26,667×12 = 3,20,004/-. Keeping in view the age of the deceased the
multiplier of seven was applied and compensation was accordingly
calculated to be Rs.22,40,028/-. Further, appellant no.1 was allowed
Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium; and 15,000/- each was
granted on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate. As such, total
compensation of Rs.23,10,028/- was awarded to the appellants herein
along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing claim
petition till realisation.
No doubt, Chapter XII of the MV Act, 1988 is a beneficial
legislation, yet, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same
2 of 3
FAO-3462-2022
cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. All that
has to be determined in the facts of a given case is that the compensation
accorded be 'just'. In my considered view, ld. Tribunal has awarded a
very 'just compensation' in the facts of the present case, which is in
accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtand
therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court for the meagre
sum of Rs. 80,000/-. In case of (1994) 2 SCC 176 titled as 'KSRTC vs
Susamma Thomas', the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a
misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding
factor for determining the compensation.
Dismissed.
( NIDHI GUPTA )
15.12.2022 JUDGE
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
