Punjab-Haryana High Court
Champa Rani & Ors vs Ram Singh & Ors on 25 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
231
FAO-5189-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25.03.2022
Champa Rani and others .....Appellants
Versus
Ram Singh and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Ms. Ishita Jain, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Ins. Co.
****
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
The appellants-claimants who are mother, father and
younger sister of the deceased Sandeep, are impugning the award dated
26.04.2016 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide which their claim petition was allowed
and the appellants were awarded Rs.4,87,400/- @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the petition till its actual realization. The amount
awarded by the Tribunal in the sum of Rs.4,87,400/- was assessed as
follows:-
Sr. Head Amount
No.
1. Monthly Income Rs.5,800/-
2. Annual Income 12x5800=Rs.69,600/-
3. Future Prospects --
4. Total Annual Income Rs.69,600/-
5. Deduction (50%) Rs.34,800/-
6. Annual Dependency Rs.34,800/-
8. Total Dependency Rs.34,800x13=Rs.4,52,400/-
1 of 6
FAO-5189-2016 (O&M) -2-
9. Loss of Consortium --
10. Filial Consortium to Mother --
and Father
11. Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/-
12. Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/-
13. Total Compensation Rs.4,87,400/-
Brief facts of the case are that on 25.09.2013, Sandeep
(since deceased), aged 27-28 years, a bachelor was coming back to his
home after collecting paddy straw on his bicycle. At about 06:00 P.M.
when he reached near village Masana Rangran, a truck bearing
registration No.HR-64-8374 (offending vehicle) being driven by
respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and
struck the cycle, as a result of which, Sandeep fell down and sustained
fatal injuries. On account of the multiple injuries sustained in the motor
vehicular accident, the deceased succumbed to them.
The deceased was stated to be running a milk dairy and
earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, it was claimed that the
deceased had secured a job in Muscat (UAE) on a salary of Rs.47,000/-
per month.
On being put to notice, respondents put in appearance.
Respondents No.1 and 2 filed their written statement wherein the
factum of accident in question was denied.
Respondent No.3 filed its separate written statement
wherein it was pleaded that the accident took place due to the sole
negligence of the deceased himself. It was further pleaded that the
petition had been filed by the claimants in collusion with respondents
No.1 and 2 by falsely involving the offending vehicle in the accident in
question.
2 of 6
FAO-5189-2016 (O&M) -3-
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed:
1. Whether Sandeep Singh son of Singh Ram
died in an accident caused by vehicle No.HR-
64-8374 due to rash and negligence driving of
respondent No.1 as alleged? OPP
2. To what amount of compensation, if any, and
from whom the claimants are entitled? OPP
3. Whether the insured has violated the terms
and conditions of the insurance policy as
alleged. If so, its effect? OPR-3
4. Relief
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that though
the learned Tribunal vide its impugned award recorded a positive
finding that the accident in question had occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of respondent No.1 and had awarded compensation in
the sum of Rs.4,87,400/- to the appellants, however, the compensation
assessed was inadequate. It was submitted that the monthly income of
the deceased was wrongly assessed as Rs.5,800/- per month even
though his passport Ex.P2 along with a copy of his visa Ex.P3 had been
placed on record to show that the deceased was to go to Muscat (UAE)
for employment and was to draw a salary of Rs.47,000/- per month. It
was also submitted that nothing was assessed qua future prospects and
even no compensation was assessed with respect to the loss of sibling
consortium to the unmarried sister of the deceased. It was further
submitted that the compensation assessed qua the other conventional
3 of 6
FAO-5189-2016 (O&M) -4-
heads also required to be reassessed in the light of the settled law.
Learned counsel still further submitted that a wrong multiplier had been
applied by taking into account the age of appellant/claimant No.1 i.e.
the mother of the deceased whereas the multiplier should have been on
the basis of the age of the deceased as per settled law. In support of her
submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon National Insurance
Co. Vs. Pranay Sethi : 2017 SCC 270 and United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others : 2020(3) RCR
(Civil) 75.
Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company
opposed the submissions made by the counsel opposite with respect to
the monthly income of the deceased having been assessed at only
Rs.5,800/- per month. He submitted that no proof of income was
brought on record before the Tribunal in support of the income of the
deceased and hence the Tribunal after taking into account the minimum
wages prevailing in the State of Haryana in the year 2013, in respect of
the skilled labourer, rightly assessed his income as Rs.5,800/- per
month. Learned counsel conceded that since the age of the deceased
was about 27-28 years, the multiplier as per settled law should have
been 17 and not 13 which had been wrongly applied by the Tribunal on
the basis of the age of appellant/claimant No.1 i.e. mother of the
deceased.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on
perusing the case file, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal requires to be reassessed in consonance with
the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme
4 of 6
FAO-5189-2016 (O&M) -5-
Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. : (2009) 6 SCC 121.
The age of the deceased was 27-28 years, therefore, in
view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma's case (supra), the multiplier of '17' is to be applied instead of
'13'.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case
(supra) has quantified the amount in the sum of Rs.15,000/-,
Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- to be awarded under conventional heads
i.e. loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium respectively.
Still further, it has been held that the aforesaid amounts would be
further subject to 10% enhancement after every three years. Therefore,
the appellants would be entitled to 10% enhancement qua the
compensation under conventional heads, as was also held and
reassessed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rasmita Biswal and others
Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another :
2022(1) RCR(Civil) 344 as per the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi's
case(supra). Hence, the amount of compensation under the
conventional heads stands modified to Rs.16,500/-, Rs.16,500/- and
Rs.44,000/- for loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium
respectively.
This Court, however, does not find any merit in the
submissions made by the counsel for the appellants qua the monthly
income of the deceased having been assessed on the lower side. In the
opinion of this Court no interference is warranted as far as the monthly
income assessed by the Tribunal is concerned as no cogent evidence
5 of 6
FAO-5189-2016 (O&M) -6-
was led to prove the income of the deceased.
Resultantly, the compensation is re-assessed as follows:-
Sr. Head Amount
No.
1. Monthly Income Rs.5,800/-
2. Annual Income 12x5800=Rs.69,600/-
3. Future Prospects (40%) Rs.69,600x40%=Rs.27,840/-
4. Total Annual Income Rs.97,440/-
5. Deduction towards personal Rs.48,720/-
expenses (1/2)
6. Annual Dependency Rs.48,720/-
8. Total Dependency Rs.48720x17=Rs.8,28,240/-
9. Filial Consortium to Mother, Rs.44,000/- each i.e. Rs.1,32,000/-
Father and Sister
10. Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-
11. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-
12. Total Compensation Rs.9,93,240/-
The appellants-claimants are therefore, held entitled to a
total of Rs.9,93,240/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of filing of petition till its actual realization.
With these modifications, the present appeal stands
disposed of in above terms.
25.03.2022 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Vinay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
