Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sumitra Devi And Anr vs Chander Pal And Anr on 22 September, 2022
FAO-2770-2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
433 FAO-2770-2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 22.09.2022
Sumitra Devi and another ---Appellants
versus
Chander Pal @ Kala and another ---Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr.Ramender Chauhan, Advocate
for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellants through instant appeal are seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated
31.01.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for
short 'Tribunal') whereby Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.2,74,000/- along with interest @ 7½ % per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition.
2. The present appeal was listed for hearing before this
Court on 15.09.2022 and on that day, there was no representation on
behalf of the respondents. Today also, there is no change in the
situation. The appeal is of the year 2013, thus, the Court is left with
no option except to adjudicate with the able assistance of counsel for
appellant.
1 of 4
FAO-2770-2013 (O&M) -2-
3. The facts emerging from record and necessary for the
adjudication of present appeal are that on 17.08.2011, Kapil and his
father Har Kishan while riding on scooter met with an accident with a
motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-11D-0882. Kapil died on the
spot. The appellants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of death of
Kapil. The Tribunal after adjudicating different issues concluded that
driver of motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-11D-0882 was
responsible for the accident. Consequently, the Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.2.74 lakhs on account of death of Kapil.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly states that he
does not dispute quantum of income assessed by the Tribunal.
However, he prays that amount of compensation be re-determined in
view of a five-Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017
(16) SCC 680 and a three-Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121. There is
no dispute qua age of deceased. The Tribunal has conceded
multiplier 11 whereas as per afore-cited judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court, multiplier should be 18. No income on account of
future prospects has been assessed whereas it should be 40%. The
compensation awarded under conventional heads is on the lower
side.
5. I have perused the record and heard arguments of
2 of 4
FAO-2770-2013 (O&M) -3-
counsel for appellant.
6. There is no dispute qua income of the deceased i.e.
Rs.4,000/- per month and age of deceased is 25 years. In view of
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the multiplier should be 18,
income under future prospects should be 40% and amount under
conventional heads should be granted. Applying the ratio laid down
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited judgments, the amount
of compensation is re-determined as below :-
Particulars Amount of compensation
(in Rs.)
Annual income of the
deceased 48000
Future prospects 40.00%
Income after addition
of future prospects 67200
Deduction on account 50%
of personal expenses
Assessed income 33600
Multiplier (18) 604800
Loss of estate 16500
Loss of consortium
88000
(44000X2)
Funeral expenses 16500
Total 725800
7. The appellants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% from the
date of filing of claim petition till the date of actual payment. It is
made clear that amount already paid would be deducted from claim
determined hereinabove.
8. The respondent-Insurer is directed to make payment
within a period of eight weeks from today.
3 of 4
FAO-2770-2013 (O&M) -4-
9. The appeal is disposed of in the above-stated terms.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
22.09.2022
anju
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
