Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bimla Devi And Ors vs Ravi Mohammad And Ors on 23 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
207
FAO No.2402 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.12.2022
Bimla Devi and others
......Appellants
Versus
Ravi Mohammad and others
......Respondents
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
*****
Present:- Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate
for the appellants.
Service of notice upon respondents No.1 and 2
dispensed with vide order dated 18.11.2022.
Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate appearing for
Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the Award passed by
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for short, 'the Tribunal')
on 23.09.2009, whereby the appellants-claimants (here-in-after to be
referred as 'the claimants') have been awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.2,50,000/- 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 Pawan
Kumar, i.e the son of claimants No.1 and 2 and brother of claimants No.3
to 5, in a motor vehicular accident, they (claimants) have preferred the
instant appeal for seeking the enhancement of the amount of compensation.
1 of 5
2. As per the brief factual-matrix culminating in the filing of the
present appeal, the claimants filed a petition against the respondents, who
are the respective driver, owner and insurer of the Car bearing registration
No.DL-9CJ-0249 (for short 'the offending vehicle') for claiming a sum of
Rs.10 (ten) lac from them, while averring that on 09.04.2008, said Pawan
Kumar was going from Village Rattanpura towards Village Chautala, on
foot and he was keeping to the correct side on the road. In the meantime,
the offending vehicle, which was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash
and negligent manner at a very high speed, came there from Sangria side
and it knocked him down and he sustained fatal injuries in this accident and
succumbed to the same instantaneously.
3. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed their joint written-statement
whereas respondent No.3-insurance Company filed its separate written
statement, contesting the claim as put-forth by the claimants in their
petition, on several grounds. Then, the issues were framed on 18.09.2008.
After appreciating and evaluating the evidence as led by the parties on the
record and hearing their counsel, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition
vide the impugned Award and granted the compensation to the claimants,
as already indicated in the opening para of this judgment and fastened the
joint as well as several liability upon the respondents to pay the same.
4. It is worth-while to mention here that the service of notice
upon respondent No.1-driver and respondent No.2-owner, has already been
dispensed with by this Court vide the order dated 18.11.2022.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants-claimants as
2 of 5
well as learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company in this
appeal and have also perused the file carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants has contended that the
Tribunal fell in error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.2,200/-, by ignoring the fact that even the rate of the minimum wages,
as notified by the State Government to be payable to an unskilled worker,
as prevalent at the time of the said accident, was Rs.3,586/- per month, i.e
much higher than the afore-assessed income and moreover, the Tribunal
has not awarded any compensation towards the future prospects, loss of
estate and loss of consortium and even the amount awarded for the funeral
expenses, is also inadequate and in these circumstances, the claimants are
entitled to the enhancement of the amount of compensation, as awarded to
them by the Tribunal, accordingly.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company has argued that the claimants have already been granted more
than sufficient compensation by the Tribunal and hence, they are not
entitled for any further enhancement in the amount of compensation.
8. It goes undisputed between the parties that on the day of the
accident in question, the prevalent rate of minimum wages, as notified by
the Government of Haryana to be payable to an unskilled worker/labourer,
was Rs.3586/- per month. Concededly, the deceased was a young boy aged
about 21 years, meaning thereby that he was quite capable of earning
income at least by working as a labourer. In such circumstances, it is
explicit that the assessment of his income by the Tribunal as Rs.2200/- per
3 of 5
month cannot be considered to be justified at all and therefore, the monthly
income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.3586/-.
9. In view of the observations made by the Constitution Bench of
the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
and others 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009, an amount equivalent to 40% of the
above-assessed income of the deceased is to be added therein towards the
future prospects and when so added, his monthly income comes out to be
Rs.5020.40Ps (rounded off as Rs.5020/-). Admittedly, the deceased was a
bachelor at the time of his death and it being so, 50% of his afore-said
income is to be deducted on the score of his personal expenses, leaving the
remaining half of the same to be counted towards the dependency of the
claimants and the annual dependency of the claimants, when so calculated,
would be (Rs.2510x12)=Rs.30,120/-. In view of the above-mentioned age
of the deceased at the time of the said accident, the application of the
multiplier of '18' would be appropriate to arrive at the amount of
compensation as payable to the claimants and when so applied, the said
amount, would be (Rs.30,120x18)=Rs.5,42,160/-.
10. Besides the afore-calculated amount, the claimants shall be
entitled to the sum of Rs.16,500/- towards the funeral expenses and another
amount of Rs.16,500/- for the loss of estate and to add to it, claimants No.1
and 2, being the parents of the deceased, are also awarded a sum of
Rs.44,000/- each towards the loss of filial consortium.
11. In view of the above-discussed facts and circumstances, the
amount of enhanced compensation is worked out as under:-
4 of 5
Head Compensation Compensation Enhancement
awarded by the awarded by this
Tribunal Court
Loss of Rs.2,37,600/- Rs.5,42,160/- 3,04,560/-
Dependency. (13,200x18) (30,120x18)
Expenses of Rs.12,400/- Rs.16,500/- Rs.4,100/-
transportation
and cremation
(Funeral
expenses)
Loss of Estate Nil Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/-
Towards filial Nil Rs.88,000/- Rs.88,000/-
consortium to @ Rs.44,000/-
claimants each
No.1&2
(parents)
Total Rs.4,13,160/-
enhancement
12. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, the appeal in hand is
allowed to the effect that the claimants are entitled to the net enhanced
compensation to the tune of Rs.4,13,160/-, over and above the amount of
Rs.2,50,000/-, as already awarded to them by the Tribunal and the said
enhanced amount shall carry the interest @ 7.5% per annum and except the
amount as exclusively payable to claimants No.1 and 2 towards the filial
consortium, the remaining enhanced amount would 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
