Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Ins. Co. Ltd vs Abha And Ors on 23 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
210
FAO No.5542 of 2010 and
X-Objections No.11-CII of 2011
Date of Decision: 23.12.2022
National Insurance Company Limited
......Appellant
Versus
Abha and others
......Respondents
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
*****
Present:- Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate
for the appellant-Insurance Company.
Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2-claimants/cross-objectors.
Service of notice upon respondent No.3
dispensed with vide order dated 18.11.2022.
Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the Award passed by
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, 'the
Tribunal') on 08.05.2010, whereby respondents No.1 and 2-claimants/
cross-objectors (here-in-after to be referred as 'the claimants') have been
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/-, along-with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization, on account of the death of their daughter named Amiti in a
1 of 5
FAO No.5542 of 2010 and X-Objections No.11-CII of 2011 -2-
motor vehicular accident, the appellant-Insurance Company (here-in-after
to be referred as 'the insurance company') has preferred the instant appeal
for seeking the reduction in the amount of compensation.
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the
filing of the present appeal, are that the claimants filed a petition under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for claiming compensation of
Rs.10 (ten) lac from respondent No.3-driver, respondent No.4-owner and
the appellant-insurer (arrayed as respondents No.1 to 3 respectively in the
petition) of the Truck bearing registration No.HR-37-3700, while averring
that on 29.10.2005, their above-named daughter, who was aged about 18
years, was pillion-riding on the Scooter bearing registration No.HR-03-B-
6683 and was going towards Sectors 16-17 at Panchkula. In the meantime,
the afore-said Truck, which was being driven by the respondent-driver,
came from Sector 15 side and it hit the back side of the Scooter and their
daughter sustained grievous injuries in this accident which, ultimately,
proved fatal for her.
3. Respondents No. 1 & 2 in the petition, i.e the driver and owner
of the said Truck, filed their joint written statement whereas the appellant-
Insurance Company filed its separate written-statement, contesting the
claim set-forth by the claimants in their petition, on various grounds. The
Tribunal put the parties to the trial by framing the issues on 08.09.2006.
After appreciating and evaluating the evidence as led by the parties on the
record and hearing their counsel, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim
petition vide the impugned Award, while granting the compensation to the
2 of 5
FAO No.5542 of 2010 and X-Objections No.11-CII of 2011 -3-
claimants, as already indicated in the opening para of this judgment and
holding all the respondents in the petition to be jointly and severally liable
to pay the same.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that the service of notice upon
respondent No.3-driver in the instant appeal, has been dispensed with vide
the order dated 18.11.2022.
5. It is again worth-while to point it out here that the claimants
have also preferred the Cross-Objections in the present appeal for seeking
the enhancement of the amount of compensation, as awarded to them vide
the impugned Award.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company as well as learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2-claimants/
cross-objectors and learned counsel for respondent No.4-owner in this
appeal and on the Cross-Objections as well and have also gone through the
file carefully.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has
contended that the Tribunal has assessed the notional annual income of the
deceased as Rs.15,000/- and has applied the multiplier of '16' for working
out the amount of compensation but it has not made any deduction from the
above-said notional income of the deceased towards her personal expenses,
before calculating the said amount and in these circumstances, it becomes
explicit that the amount of compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal to the
claimants, is highly excessive/exorbitant and therefore, the same deserves
to be reduced/modified accordingly.
3 of 5
FAO No.5542 of 2010 and X-Objections No.11-CII of 2011 -4-
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants/cross-objectors
has argued that the notional income of the deceased, as assessed by the
Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore, the same should be increased in
view of the ever rising rate of inflation and consequently, the amount of
compensation be also enhanced. To buttress her argument, she has placed
reliance upon the verdict rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kurvan
Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and
another 2022(1) RCR (Civil) 165 to the effect that "where a claim petition
was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for seeking
compensation on account of the death of a child, aged seven years and not
an earning member, the fixing of notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum
was not just and reasonable and it was a fit case to increase the notional
income by taking into account the inflation, devaluation of rupee and cost
of living and the notional income of the deceased was to be assessed at
Rs.25,000/- per annum".
9. The afore-cited observations are fully applicable to the instant
appeal and in the light of the same, the notional income of the deceased is
assessed at Rs.25,000/- per annum and without making any deduction from
the same towards her personal expenses and by applying the multiplier of
'16' in view of the factum of her age being 18 years at the time of the said
accident, the amount of compensation is calculated to be (Rs.25,000x16)=
Rs.4,00,000/-. Besides this amount, the claimants shall be entitled to the
compensation @ Rs.40,000/- each towards the loss of filial consortium and
Rs.15,000/- for the funeral expenses.
4 of 5
FAO No.5542 of 2010 and X-Objections No.11-CII of 2011 -5-
10. Resultantly, the enhanced amount of compensation, as would
be payable to the claimants, is worked out as under:-
Head Amount
Compensation Rs.25,000/-x16= Rs.4,00,000/-
Filial Consortium Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each)
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total compensation to be Rs.4,95,000/-
paid
Compensation already
awarded Rs.2,40,000/-
Net Enhanced amount Rs.2,55,000/-
10. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, the appeal preferred
by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the Cross-Objections filed by
the claimants are hereby allowed to the effect that they (claimants) are
entitled to the net enhanced compensation amounting to Rs.2,55,000/-,
over and above the amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, as already awarded to them by
the Tribunal and the said enhanced amount shall carry the interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till its realization
and shall be payable to the claimants in the same terms as mentioned in the
impugned Award.
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
December 23, 2022 JUDGE
pooja
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
5 of 5
