Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suman And Ors vs Farman And Ors on 6 September, 2022
FAO-5384-2016 (O&M) --1--
226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-5384-2016
Decided on:-31.08.2022
Suman and others ....Appellants..
vs.
Farman and others ....Respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate,
for the respondent-Insurance company.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA J.
The claimants are in appeal, impugning the award dated
24.02.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Panipat, (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"), praying for
enhancement of compensation.
2. Present is an unfortunate case, wherein the appellants
lost their minor daughter, namely, Poonam, aged 13 years in a road
accident, which took place on 25.02.2013, being hit by offending
vehicle i.e. Bolero Jeep bearing No.UP-19T-0415, driven by
respondent No.1. The appellants-claimants (parents) filed claim
petition before the Tribunal for compensation. Vide award dated
24.02.2016, a positive finding was recorded in favour of the claimants
and against respondent No.1 (driver of the offending vehicle) on the
issue of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and the learned
1 of 5
FAO-5384-2016 (O&M) --2--
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation in favour of
the appellants-claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of institution of claim petition till its realization.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants-claimants filed present
appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of learned
counsel for the appellants that the deceased was a student and
considering the fact that she was getting education and could have
served/helped her parents in future, more compensation should have
been awarded in favour of the appellants. He further submits that the
learned Tribunal has committed an error while assessing the notional
income of deceased/child in this case to be Rs.20,000/- per annum.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-
insurance company submits that in the facts of the present case, the
appellants have already been awarded just compensation.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the case file, I find that the learned Tribunal has committed
an error while assessing the notional income of the deceased @
Rs.20,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal has failed to act in a
prudent manner while deviating from the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Kishan Gopal and another vs
Lala and others, 2013(4) RCR (Civil), 276 and has assumed too much
to create a distinction on the basis of deceased child being female in
the present case which appears to be neither logical nor legal. On a
careful examination of findings recorded in Krishan Gopal's case
(supra), it can be traced out that no such distinction has been made
2 of 5
FAO-5384-2016 (O&M) --3--
therein.
7. In the case of Kishan Gopal's case (supra) while dealing
with a case relating to road accident in the year 1992, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was pleased to hold that in case of death of a child,
aged 10 years, notional income of Rs.30,000/- shall be taken while
determining the compensation.
8. In the present case, accident took place on 25.02.2013 i.e.
more than 21 years after the accident, which was subject matter of
Kishan Gopal's case (supra). Considering the time gap in the date of
accident as well as devaluation of Rupee drastically, this Court in case
titled as "Sunita Devi and another vs. Vijay Pal and others", 2018(2)
Law Herald 1659, wherein the accident took place in the year 2012
after considering the case of Kishan Gopal's case (supra), has been
pleased to hold that the notional income should be taken @
Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/- in case of death of a child aged 15
years. The ratio laid down in Sunita Devi's case (supra) is fully
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the
accident in this case took place in the year 2013 and the deceased
child happened to be 13 years of age. Relevant extract from para 8 of
Sunita Devi's case (supra) is reproduced hereunder for reference:-
"8. Reference can also be made to a latest
judgment of this Court in the case of Beet Nath and
another v. Gulab Singh and others (FAO No.159-
2015) decided on July 10, 2017, wherein the notional
income of the child who died in an accident which took
place in the year 2012 was taken as Rs.50,000/-. It was
observed in that case that in the case of Kishan Gopal
and another v. Lala and others, 2013(4) RCR (Civil)
3 of 5
FAO-5384-2016 (O&M) --4--
276, wherein the notional income of a 10 years old child
was taken as Rs.30,000/-, the year of the accident was
1992. But in that case, the accident had taken place in
the year 2012 and the age of the deceased at the time of
the accident was 15 years. Since, the value of rupee has
come down drastically since the year 1992, the notional
income in Beet Nath's case (supra) was taken as
Rs.50,000/-."
Thus, applying the ratio laid down in the Sunita Devi's
case (supra) and considering the notional income of the deceased to be
Rs.50,000/- per annum, compensation in the present case is enhanced
in the following manner by giving an increase in the notional income
as well as reasonable increase of another Rs.50,000/- under the
conventional heads by making it one lakh, again relying upon the
depreciating value of Rupee. Considering the year of accident in
Kishan Gopal's case (supra) as compared to the year of accident in the
present case, which has a long gap of about 21 years in between:-
Sr. No. Heads Amount
1 Notional income=50,000/-x15 Rs.7,50,000/-
2 Conventional heads Rs.1,00,000/-
Total compensation Rs.8,50,000/-
Compensation awarded by the 3,50,000/-
Tribunal
Enhanced compensation 5,00,000/-
9. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry
interest @ 9% from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization. Accordingly, the award stands modified to the above
extent and present appeal is partly allowed. It is made clear that in
case, the respondent-Insurance Company fails to pay the enhanced
compensation along with interest @ 9% within a period of two months
4 of 5
FAO-5384-2016 (O&M) --5--
from today, the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for interest @
15% per annum.
10. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stand disposed
of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
31.08.2022 JUDGE
sonika
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
5 of 5
