Punjab-Haryana High Court
New India Assurance Co vs Saroj & Ors on 4 March, 2022
210
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
1. F.A.O. No. 40 of 2013 (O&M)
The New India Assurance Company Limited
... Appellant(s)
Versus
Saroj and Others
... Respondent(s)
AND
2. F.A.O. No. 842 of 2013 (O&M)
Saroj and Others
... Appellant(s)
Versus
Gaja Nand and Others
... Respondent(s)
DATE OF DECISION: 04.03.2022
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. R.C.Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant (In FAO-40-2013) and
for the respondent No.2 (In FAO-842-2013).
Mr. Vivek Khatri and Mr.Narender Kaajla, Advocates
for the respondent No.1 to 4 (In FAO-40-2013) and
for the appellants (In FAO-842-2013).
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of the two cross-appeals, filed by the
insurance company as well as the claimants assailing the correctness of the
award, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter
referred to as "the Tribunal").
2. The learned counsel representing the parties do not call in
question, the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the involvement of the
vehicle and the accident having occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of Gaja Nand (the respondent No.5 in FAO-40-2013). The only
1 of 5
F.A.O. No. 842 of 2013 (O&M)
issue pressed before this Court is with respect to the quantum of
compensation.
3. Sh. Rajesh, aged 33 years, had lost his precious life in an
automobile accident on 18.11.2009. He has left behind his aged mother,
widow and two minor children. In the absence of the documentary evidence
with respect to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal had assessed his
income @ ₹10,000/- per month and thereafter assessed the compensation @
₹23,87,000/-.
4. The learned counsel representing the insurance company
contends that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased
@ ₹10,000/- per month, particularly when there was no documentary
evidence in support of same. Even the driving license of the deceased was
not produced.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the claimants
contends that late Sh. Rajesh was not only a driver, but also the owner of the
truck involved in the accident. He refers to the statement of PW.9 Sandeep
Lamba from Magnum Finance Limited, to prove that the truck was
financed by late Sh.Rajesh from the company in January, 2009 and he was
regularly paying the instalment of ₹21,572/- per month till the truck met
with an accident. He further contends that the Tribunal has erred in assessing
the income @ ₹10,000/- per month as also while awarding the amount under
the conventional heads.
6. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties, at length and
with their able assistance, perused the paper-books as well as the record of
the Tribunal, which was requisitioned.
2 of 5
F.A.O. No. 842 of 2013 (O&M)
7. On a careful perusal of the statement of PW.9 Sandeep Lamba,
it is evident that late Sh.Rajesh had purchased a new truck in January, 2009,
after getting the vehicle financed for ₹6,80,000/-. He was regularly repaying
the amount, in instalments @ ₹21,572/- per month. Thus, there is no
substance in the argument of the learned counsel representing the insurance
company. It is also not in dispute that Sh.Rajesh died in an automobile
accident while driving the truck.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it is safe to conclude that
late Sh.Rajesh was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle. He was paying the
instalments @ ₹21,572/- per month. No doubt, no documentary evidence has
been produced, even then, his income cannot be assessed equivalent to a
driver, particularly when he was repaying the loan amount regularly.
9. The accident took place on 18.11.2009. After repaying the
instalment, the deceased must be saving some amount for his mother, widow
and minor children.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the income of the
deceased, after repaying the instalment, is assessed @ ₹12,000/- per month.
The loan amount was to be repaid in 47 instalments. Thereafter, his income
would increase. He had already paid 8 instalment. Thus, he was further
required to repay the amount in 39 monthly instalments. After the period of
39 months, the income of the deceased is assessed @ ₹20,000/- per month.
11. There are four dependents. Each one of them is entitled to the
amount for the lost of consortium @ ₹40,000/- in view of the recent
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others 2018(4) RCR (Civil) 333
3 of 5
F.A.O. No. 842 of 2013 (O&M)
which has been reiterated by another Division Bench in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Somwati and Others (Civil Appeal No. 3093 No.
2020, decided on 07.09.2020 and by a three Judges Bench in United India
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and
Others (2020) SCC Online 410. The Tribunal has erred in awarding
₹5,000/- towards funeral and ₹5,000/- for the lost of estate. As per the
judgment of five Judges Bench, the amount under the head of funeral
expenses and lost of estate is ₹15,000/- each.
12. However, on account of increase in the income in future i.e.
future prospects, the Tribunal has added 30% of the existing income which
should be 40% keeping in view the age of the deceased.
13. The Tribunal has deducted 1/4th of the income towards the
personal and self-expenses of the deceased. The aforesaid deduction in the
income is in accordance with law.
14. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the amount is re-calculated
as under:-
Sr. No. Heads under which the Amount awarded Amount awarded
amount awarded by the Tribunal (In by the High Court
₹) (In ₹)
A) Monthly Income 10,000.00 20,000.00
B) Future Prospects 13,000.00 28,000.00
(@ 30% i.e. 10,000 (@ 40% i.e. 20,000
+ 3,000) + 8,000)
C) Dependency 9,750.00 21,000.00
(@ ¼th i.e. 13,000 - (@ ¼th i.e. 28,000 -
3,250) 7,000)
D) Annual Income X Multiplier 18,72,000 40,32,000
(9,750 x 12 x 16) (21,000x12x16)
E) Funeral Expenses 5,000.00 5,000.00
F) Loss of Estate 5,000.00 15,000.00
G) Parental, spousal and filial 25,000.00 1,60,000.00
4 of 5
F.A.O. No. 842 of 2013 (O&M)
Sr. No. Heads under which the Amount awarded Amount awarded
amount awarded by the Tribunal (In by the High Court
₹) (In ₹)
consortium (40,000x4)
H) Expenses incurred on 4,80,000.00 --
treatment
I) Total amount awarded 23,87,000.00 42,22,000.00
15. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the
respondent No.4-mother of the deceased has died. The enhanced amount
shall be shared by the widow and two minor children.
16. In view of the above, the appeal, filed by the insurance
company, is dismissed, whereas that of the claimants is allowed.
17. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Anil Kshetarpal)
Judge
March 04, 2022
"DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
