Punjab-Haryana High Court
United Insurance Company Limited vs Sarbjit Kaur And Others on 8 September, 2022
FAO-3575-2017 (O&M) --1--
237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-3575-2017
Decided on:-08.09.2022
United Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant..
vs.
Sarbjit Kaur and others ....Respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Gourav Goel, Advocate,
for the respondents/claimants.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA J.
In the present appeal, appellant-Insurance Company has
challenged the award dated 23.02.2017 passed by learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as
"Tribunal") on the point of quantum of compensation.
2. Accident in the present case took place on 14.07.2015,
wherein, one Sukhvir Singh, expired on account of rash and negligent
driving of respondent No.1-Jasvir Singh. At the time of accident,
deceased was 20 years of age and a BBA student, in addition, he was
also helping his father in the agricultural work.
3. The respondents being claimants/dependents of the
deceased filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal, claiming
Rs.40 lacs as compensation. Vide award dated 23.02.2017, a positive
finding was recorded in favour of the claimants and against
1 of 6
FAO-3575-2017 (O&M) --2--
respondent No.1 (driver of the offending vehicle) on the issue of rash
and negligent driving. Further, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.16,45,000/- as compensation. The details of the compensation in
the tabulated form are given herein below:-
Sr. No. Heads Calculation
1 Earnings of deceased Rs.10,000/- per month
50% of above to be added as future (Rs.10,000/- +Rs.5000)-
2 prospects Rs.15,000/- per month.
1/2 of Sr. No.(ii) to be deducted as Rs.15,000-7500)
3 personal expenses of the deceased =Rs.7500/- per month
Compensation after multiplier of '18' is (Rs.7500x12x18)=
4 applied Rs.16,20,000/-
5 Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
Total compensation awarded Rs.16,45,000/-
4. In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance company has argued that the learned Tribunal has gone
wrong while applying multiplier of 18, as the compensation was
required to be assessed by applying the multiplier on considering the
age of the parents and not that of the deceased. He further submits that
even the addition made @ 50% towards future prospects was also on
the higher side as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as
"National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others;
2017(4) RCR(Civil) 1009, has held that in case of deceased being
self-employed or on a fixed salary, addition of 40% of the established
income was to be awarded where the deceased was below the age of
40 years. Relevant paragraph No.61 (iv) is reproduced hereunder:-
"In case the deceased was self-employed
or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the
established income should be the warrant where
the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An
addition of 25% where the deceased was between
2 of 6
FAO-3575-2017 (O&M) --3--
the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years
should be regarded as the necessary method of
computation. The established income means the
income minus the tax component."
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents-
claimants submits that both the multiplier and the future prospects
have been rightly applied by the learned Tribunal in the facts of the
present case. He further submits that rather the compensation awarded
under the conventional heads was assessed on the lower side in view
of law laid down in case of Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Para 61 (viii)
referred by him is reproduced hereunder:-
"Reasonable figures on conventional
heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-
and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts
should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three
years. "
6. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants further
relies upon para 13 of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in case titled as "Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi vs. Kasam
Dand Kumbhar, reported as 2015(1) RCR (Civil) 828, to contend that
though the claimants are not in appeal, however, applying the
principle of grant of just compensation amount can be enhanced in an
appeal filed by Insurance Company. Para 13 is reproduced here
under:-
"13. "The tribunal has awarded
Rs.2,24,000/- as against the same, claimants have
not filed any appeal. As against the award passed
3 of 6
FAO-3575-2017 (O&M) --4--
by the tribunal when the claimants have not filed
any appeal, the question arises whether the
income of the deceased could be increased and
compensation could be enhanced. In terms of
Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the
courts/tribunals are to pass awards determining
the amount of compensation as to be fair and
reasonable and accepted by the legal standards.
The power of the courts in awarding reasonable
compensation was emphasized by this Court in
Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors.[3],Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mohd. Nasir & Anr.
[4], and Ningamma & Anr. vs. United India
Insurance Company Ltd.[5]. As against the award
passed by the tribunal even though the claimants
have not filed any appeal, as it is obligatory on the
part of courts/tribunals to award just and
reasonable compensation, it is appropriate to
increase the compensation."
7. As regards the first argument raised by learned counsel
for the appellant on the issue of multiplier, I find no force therein, in
view of the law laid down in "Sube Singh and another vs. Sham
Singh (deceased) and others, Civil Appeal No.7176 of 2015, decided
on 09.02.2018. It is well settled that the compensation has to be
awarded by applying the multiplier after considering the age of the
deceased and not that of the parents/dependents. Relevant extract from
para 4 of above referred judgment is reproduced hereunder or
reference:-
"The legal position, however, is no
more res integra. In the case of Munna Lal Jain
(supra) decided by a three Judge Bench of this
4 of 6
FAO-3575-2017 (O&M) --5--
Court, it is held that multiplier should depend on
the age of the deceased and not on the age of the
dependents."
8. However, there is some force in the other arguments
raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Since, the deceased in the
present case was 20 years of age and was a student of BBA as well as
was also helping his father in the agricultural pursuits, the future
prospects should have been added @ 40%.
9. I also find substance in the submissions made on behalf
of respondents-claimants. Even though no appeal has been preferred
on their behalf seeking enhancement of compensation as regards
conventional heads, still, considering the fact that the Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation and its main object & purpose is
to award just compensation to the accident victims and their
dependents/claimants, therefore, the compensation awarded in their
favour under the conventional heads needs to be enhanced by
awarding Rs.16,500/- on account of loss of estate and Rs.88,000/- to
both the claimants as consortium. However, compensation awarded by
learned Tribunal on account of 'funeral expenses' was on the higher
side i.e. Rs.25,000. Therefore, the same is decreased from Rs.25,000/-
to Rs.16,500/-.
10. In view of the reasons recorded herein above, the appeal
is hereby partly allowed and the amount of compensation is
recalculated as detailed herein below by applying an addition of 40%
towards future prospects instead of 50% and by awarding appropriate
compensation under the conventional heads:-
5 of 6
FAO-3575-2017 (O&M) --6--
Sr. No. Heads Calculation
1 Earnings of deceased Rs.10,000/- per month
40% of above to be added as future (Rs.10,000/-+Rs.4000)-
2 prospects Rs.14,000/- per month.
1/2 of Sr. No.(ii) to be deducted as Rs.14,000-7000)
3 personal expenses of the deceased =Rs.7000/- per month
Compensation after multiplier of '18' is (Rs.7000x12x18)=
4 applied Rs.15,12,000/-
5 Parental Consortium Rs.88,000/-
6 Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/-
7 Loss of estate Rs.16,500/-
Total compensation Rs.16,33,000/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.16,45,000/-
Compensation reduced after Rs.12,000/-
re-calculation
(16,33,000-16, 45,000)
11. Since, there was stay regarding recovery of amount of
compensation beyond Rs.7 lacs, therefore, the appellant-Insurance
Company is directed to release the compensation amount as per
aforesaid re-calculation after deducting the compensation already
awarded along with interest @ Rs.9% per annum to the claimants,
from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization, within
a period of two months. In case, the appellant-insurance company fails
to pay the aforesaid compensation along with interest within a period
of two months from today, the claimants shall be entitled for interest
@ 15% per annum. The remaining conditions of disbursal of amount
to the claimants shall remain unaltered.
12. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stand disposed
of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
08.09.2022 JUDGE
sonika
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
6 of 6
