Punjab-Haryana High Court
Piara Singh vs Garish Kumar And Ors on 21 September, 2022
FAO-2846-2001 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-2846-2001 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.09.2022
Piara Singh and another ...Appellants
Versus
Garish Kumar and ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. R.N. Singhal, Advocate
for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.(ORAL)
By way of present appeal, the appellants have challenged
the award dated 17.04.2001 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short 'Tribunal').
Brief facts leading to the present case are that the son of
the appellants, namely, Ravinder Singh @ Lakhbir Singh, who was
going on a scooter bearing registration No.CHT-691 along with one
Gurdial Singh, met with an accident on account of rash and negligent
driving of Maruti Van bearing registration No.CH-02-0204 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the offending vehicle') being driven by respondent No.1.
As a result of accident, which took place on 13.03.1999, Ravinder
Singh received multiple injuries and later on died.
The parents/ appellants filed a claim petition before the
learned Tribunal, wherein it was contended that the deceased was 17
years of age and working as a carpenter, besides being a student.
Learned Tribunal vide its impugned award dated 17.04.2001
SANJAY GUPTA
2022.09.23 09:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
determined the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.90,000/- to
be payable to the claimants along with interest @ 9% till realization of
the compensation amount. The learned Tribunal also recorded a
finding of rash and negligent driving against respondent No.1.
However, as the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 and
respondent No.1 was possessing a valid Driving Licence, the liability to
pay the compensation was fastened upon respondent No.3-Insurance
Company.
By way of present appeal, the appellants are seeking
enhancement of compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellants/ parents contends that
the learned Tribunal fell into error while ignoring the evidence available
on record so as to establish that the deceased at the time of accident
was working as a Carpenter, besides being a student and was earning
a sum of Rs.2000/- per month. He further submits that statement made
by the claimant- appellant No.2 to this extent has gone unrebutted. He
again submits that considering the age of the deceased as 17 years,
the amount of compensation should have been assessed by applying
the multiplier of '18' after including benefit of future prospects as well.
Further contends that the compensation should have also been
awarded on account of conventional heads i.e. funeral expenses,
consortium and loss of estate.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3-
Insurance Company contends that since the deceased was unmarried,
the dependency has to be taken as 50%. He further submits that in the
absence of any documentary evidence, the income of the deceased
could not be considered to be Rs.2000/- per month, as stated by the
SANJAY GUPTA
2022.09.23 09:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
claimants.
Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and
going through the paper-book as well as records of the case, I find
force in the contentions raised on behalf of the claimants/appellants.
Appellant No.2-claimant has appeared as PW1 and has specifically
stated that her son was working as a Carpenter and earning Rs.2000/-
per month. This part of the statement made by her, has gone
unrebutted. Merely on the ground that no documentary evidence has
been produced in this regard, the statement made by claimant/
appellant No.2 cannot be discarded. As normally, in case of a person
working in an unorganized sector, he cannot be expected to have proof
in the shape of documentary evidence as regards his earnings.
Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager,
United Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 4 SCC 735, wherein in
para 8, it has been observed as under:-
"8. The appellant/claimant in his appeal further
claimed that he had been earning Rs.10,000/-
p.m. by doing vegetable vending work. The
High Court however, considered the loss of
income at Rs.3500/- p.m. considering that the
claimant did not produce any document to
establish his loss of income. It is difficult for us
to convince ourselves as to how a labour
involved in an unorganized sector doing his
own business is expected to produce
documents to prove his monthly income........."
Accordingly, I find no reason to disbelieve the statement
made by appellant No.2/claimant and thus hold that the deceased, at
SANJAY GUPTA the time of accident was earning Rs.2000/- per month.
2022.09.23 09:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
Besides this, with respect to the compensation awarded
under the other conventional heads as well as multiplier, applying the
principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others and in
Smt.Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, the claimant are entitled for
Rs.16,500/- as compensation under the head of funeral expenses, loss
of consortium (filinial) is to be awarded to the tune of Rs.44,000/- x 2
and Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate by applying 10% increase
under the conventional heads. As regards, the grant of future
prospects is concerned, the deceased happened to be self-employed,
in view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), 2017(4)
RCR (Civil) 1009, the same should have been awarded @ 40% of the
annual income.
However, I find force in the arguments raised on behalf of
respondent No.3-Insurance Company that as the deceased was a
bachelor, the dependency has to be taken as 50%.
In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the
appellants/claimants shall be entitled for the grant of following
compensation:-
Sr. Nature Amount in
No. Rupees
1. Annual Income of deceased (Rs.2000x Rs.24,000/-
12)
2. Add 40% of Future prospects Rs.9600/-
3. Total Income (Rs.24000/- + Rs.9600/-) Rs.33600/-
4. Multiplier of 18 as per age of 17 years Rs.6,04,800/-
(Rs.33,600 /- X 18)
5. Loss of future earning capacity/ income Rs.3,02,400/-
SANJAY GUPTA
2022.09.23 09:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
[50% (percentage disability) of total
income]
6. Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-
7. Loss of Consortium (Rs.44000x2) Rs.88,000/-
8. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-
Total Compensation Rs. 4,23,400/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.90,000/-
Enhanced Amount Rs.3,33,400/-
The appellants shall be entitled to interest of 9% per annum
on the amount of compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal from
the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. Needless to
mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the
claimant shall be deducted out of the enhanced compensation.
Disposed off in the above terms.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
September 21, 2022 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
sanjay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
SANJAY GUPTA
2022.09.23 09:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
