Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhvir Kaur And Ors vs Parminder Singh And Ors on 10 November, 2022
276
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-180-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision : 10.11.2022
Lakhvir Kaur & Ors. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Parminder Singh & Ors. ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. RVS Chugh, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
CM-646-CII-2019
This is an application for condonation of delay of 44 days in
filing the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 44 days in
filing the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed off.
FAO-180-2019
The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-
appellants against the award dated 07.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Mansa (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal').
The facts relevant to the present lis are that the claimants, who
are the widow and parents of the deceased, had filed the claim petition
YOGESH SHARMA
2022.11.11 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
FAO-180-2019 (O&M) -2-
stating therein that on 07.08.2015 Tarsem Singh along with his co-villagers,
Megha Singh and Baru Singh, was going from Mansa Kenchiyan to village
Khiala Kalan on an unnumbered motorcycle. The said motorcycle was
driven by the deceased, Tarsem Singh. When they reached village Malakpur
at about 8.30 AM, a heavy vehicle (Trala) bearing registration No.PB-11-
BR-4076 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner came
from the opposite side and hit the motorcycle of Tarsem Singh as a result of
which Tarsem Singh and both the other persons suffered grievous injuries.
Respondent No.1 ran away from the spot. All three injured were taken to
the hospital from where they were referred to a bigger hospital. However,
Tarsem Singh succumbed to his injuries. FIR No.109 dated 07.08.2015 was
lodged under Sections 304-A/279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at
Police Station Sadar Mansa against respondent No.1.
In the claim petition it was averred that the deceased Tarsem
Singh was drawing a salary of Rs.8250/- per month with increase of
Rs.300/- upwards every three months. Moreover, he would work overtime
and that he was also earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month by selling
milk. Hence, his monthly income was stated to be Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-
per month. The claim petition was contested by the respondents who raised
the legal objections of locus standi and that the claim petition itself was not
maintainable. Respondent No.1 took a stand that he was having an effective
and valid driving licence. Respondent No.2 stated that the documents of the
vehicle were all valid documents and hence they were not liable to pay any
compensation. On merits, the accident was denied stating that the claimants
YOGESH SHARMA
had lodged a false complaint. Respondent No.3, Insurance Company herein,
2022.11.11 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
FAO-180-2019 (O&M) -3-
filed a separate written statement and took a stand that the accident took
place due to the negligence of the deceased Tarsem Singh. The income of
the deceased was also disputed. Further objections taken by the Insurance
Company were that the owner of the truck was not holding a valid permit
and policy. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence on the record, the
Tribunal awarded the following compensation and held the respondents
jointly and severally responsible to pay the same :
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income of the deceased Rs.8000/-
2 Future prospects @ 25% Rs.10,000/- (8000+2000)
3 Income after 1/3rd deduction Rs.7000/- (10,000-3000)
towards personal expenses
4 Annual income of the deceased Rs.84000/- (7000x12)
5 Multiplier 16 Rs.13,44,000/- (84,000x16)
6 Funeral expenses Rs.10000/-
7 Loss of consortium Rs.15,000/-
8 Loss of love and affection Rs.15,000/-
Grand Total Rs.13,84,000/-
Interest 7.5% per annum
Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the
income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side and that he was
earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. It is further the
contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the amount awarded
under the head of consortium and the conventional heads is on the lower
side. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.
YOGESH SHARMA
2022.11.11 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
FAO-180-2019 (O&M) -4-
[2018 (18) SCC 130]; National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680]; Sarla Verma &
Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121] and N.
Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company
Ltd. [2021 (4) RCR (Civil) 642].
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has contended
that an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month has rightly been assessed as income
of the deceased in the absence of any evidence qua the income of the
deceased. He has further contended that the amount awarded is just and there
is no further scope of any enhancement.
Heard.
In the present case the argument of learned counsel for the
appellants that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.20,000/- to
Rs.25,000/- per month cannot be accepted in view of the fact that no
evidence whatsoever was led to this effect. In the absence of any evidence,
the income of the deceased has rightly been assessed as Rs.8,000/- per
month as per the minimum wages applicable at the time of the accident. As
per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay
Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), the deduction of 1/3rd has rightly
been applied by the Tribunal and the multiplier of '16' is also correct.
Future prospects to the extent of 25% has wrongly been added whereas it
should have been 40%. Further, the amount awarded under the conventional
heads of loss of love and affection and funeral expenses is on the lower side.
In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
YOGESH SHARMA
Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree
2022.11.11 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
FAO-180-2019 (O&M) -5-
(supra), an amount of Rs.16,500/- is awarded under the head of loss of estate
and Rs.16,500/- under the head of funeral expenses. Only an amount of
Rs.15,000/- had been awarded by the Tribunal towards love and affection.
However, as per the law laid down, the claimant-appellants are entitled an
amount of Rs.1,32,000/- under the head of loss of consortium.
In view of the above, the compensation is accordingly worked
out as under :
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income of the deceased Rs.8000/-
2 Future prospects @ 40% Rs.11,200/- (8000+3200)
3 Income after 1/3rd deduction towards Rs.7,467/- (11,200-3733)
personal expenses
4 Annual income of the deceased Rs.89,604/- (7467x12)
5 Multiplier 16 Rs.14,33,664/- (89,604x16)
6 Loss of estate Rs.16500/-
7 Funeral expenses Rs.16500/-
8 Loss of consortium Rs.1,32,000/-
(i) Spousal : Rs.44000/-
(ii) Filial : Rs.88000/- (44000x2)
11 Grand Total Rs.15,98,664/-
Difference of compensation Rs.2,14,664/-
(1598664-1384000)
The amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal
shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the award till
the realization of the entire amount.
YOGESH SHARMA
2022.11.11 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
FAO-180-2019 (O&M) -6-
In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed
and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
10.11.2022 JUDGE
Yogesh Sharma
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
YOGESH SHARMA
2022.11.11 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
