Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanchan Khurana And Another vs Gursimran Singh And Others on 24 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059964
2023:PHHC:059964 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
279 FAO-158-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.04.2023
Smt. Kanchan Khurana & Another
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Gursimran Singh & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensa!on of Rs.16,22,000/- granted by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereina,er referred to as "the learned
Tribunal") vide Award dated 21.09.2021 passed in MACT RBT Case
No.152 of 2020 filed under Sec!ons 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereina,er referred to as "the Act"). Claimants are parents of
deceased-Amrinder Singh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on
the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that
deceased-Amrinder Singh had died due to injuries suffered by him in a
motor vehicular accident that took place on 03.04.2018 due to rash and
negligent driving of Swi, Dzire Car bearing registra!on No.HR-08N-4500
(hereina,er referred to as "the offending vehicle") being driven by
respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent
No.3. Learned Tribunal awarded compensa!on as above along with
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059964
2023:PHHC:059964 2
interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the pe!!on !ll
realisa!on. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the
amount of compensa!on.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement
of compensa!on inter alia on the grounds:
a) that income of the deceased has been taken on
lower side as only Rs.10,000/- per month. It is submiCed that it was
proven on record that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.32,748/-
per month besides annual incen!ves of approximately Rs.13,000/-. The
deceased had taken a shop on rent from Sh. Devinder Sharma (PW3) at
monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- for the first year and therea,er, at
Rs.10,500/- per month for a period of five years vide rent deed (Exhibit
PW3/B). It is further submiCed that Deceased had employed Gulab
Singh (PW4) to assist him in the work at shop at monthly salary of
Rs.8,500/-. In view of this overwhelming evidence on record, income of
the deceased should be assessed as Rs.35,000/- per month;
b) that learned Tribunal has made deduc!on of 50%
towards personal expenses whereas the same ought to be 1/3rd as
claimants are two in number;
c) that future prospects @ 40% is on lower side and
even other amounts granted under conven!onal heads are also on lower
side.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059964
2023:PHHC:059964 3
4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the
appellants.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.
6. Perusal of record of the case shows that learned
Tribunal has granted compensa!on in following manner:-
HEADS AMOUNTS
Gross Monthly Salary Rs.10,000/-
Gross Annual Income Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x 12)
Added Future Prospects (40%) Rs.1,68,000/-
(Rs.1,20,000/- + Rs.48,000/-)
Deduc!on (50%) Rs.84,000/-
(Rs.1,68,000/- - Rs.84,000/-)
Mul!plier (18) Rs.15,12,000/-
(Rs.84,000/- x 18)
Loss of consor!um Rs.80,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- x 2)
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.16,22,000/-
7. As regards argument of learned counsel for the
appellants that income of the deceased has been taken on lower side,
the findings of learned Tribunal in this regard are reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"22. Admi edly, deceased Amrinder Singh was not an
income tax payee whereas with respect to the income from
the shop/business of the deceased Amrinder Singh, no cogent
evidence/ material in the shape of sale-purchase
transac!ons, ledger, cash book etc. has been brought on
record. Rather, reliance sought to be placed by the claimants
is on certain ancillary factors such as the monthly rent of shop
and monthly salary of employee. In this regard, PW3
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059964
2023:PHHC:059964 4
Davinder Sharma, owner of the shop in ques!on has no doubt
deposed that he had let out the shop to deceased Amrinder
Singh for a period of five years at the monthly rent of
Rs.10,000/-for the first year to be enhanced to Rs.10,500/- for
the next four years, the fact remains that the document
Ex.PW3/B being a lease deed for a period in excess of one
year, the same was required to be compulsorily registered
and in the absence of registra!on, the terms of rent
agreement PW3/B cannot be read in evidence in view of the
bar enacted under Sec!on 49 of the Registra!on Act. Even if
strict rules of evidence do not apply to summary proceedings
under the Act, the provisions of Registra!on Act cannot be
given a complete go-by. Moreover, no rent receipt/
counterfoil showing payment of rent at the rate of
Rs.10,000/- or Rs.10,500/- per month by the deceased
Amrinder Singh to PW3 Davinder Sharma has been placed on
record. Similarly, with respect to the salary allegedly being
paid to PW4 Gulab Singh, suffice it to say that there is no
record of any such salary being paid and there is no document
with respect to the disbursal of the amount or the receipt
thereof by PW4 Gulab Singh. In so far as the income of
brother of Amrinder Singh namely Harwinder Singh is
concerned, PW6 Yash Pal Pathak, Assistant Manager has no
doubt proved on record documents Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/E to
show that PW2 Harwinder Singh was employed in
Bridgestone India Automo!ve Products Pvt. Ltd. as Junior
Manager - Produc!on and earning gross salary Rs.32,748/-
per month besides annual incen!ve of Rs.13,000/-
approximately, the fact remains that in the present case it is
the salary of Amrinder Singh, since deceased which is
required to be determined and it is clear from a bare perusal
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059964
2023:PHHC:059964 5
of resigna!on le er, copy Ex.PW6/E, that PW2 Harwinder
Singh had resigned from his job in view of adverse family
circumstances and not on account of fact that he would earn
more from the shop of his brother. Thus, there is no cogent
evidence/ material on record as to the income being earned
by deceased from his shop. Be that as it may, the fact remains
that the deceased is shown to be running a shop in Main
Bazaar, Taraori and in such circumstances, considering that
the minimum wages of a skilled workman in Haryana in April,
2018 was Rs.9837/- per month, it is reasonable to assess the
income of deceased Amrinder Singh as Rs.10,000/- per
month."
8. Accordingly, in view of the above said findings of the
learned Tribunal which remain uncontroverted by learned counsel for
the appellants, I find no error in assessment of monthly income as made
by learned Tribunal.
9. As it was proven on record that the deceased was
below 40 years of age at the !me of death, learned Tribunal correctly
made addi!on of 40% towards future prospects. AdmiCedly, the
deceased was unmarried therefore, deduc!on of 50% has also been
correctly made. As deceased was below 40 years of age, mul!plier of 15
ought to have been applied. However, learned Tribunal has applied
mul!plier of 18. Accordingly, total loss of dependency actually comes to
Rs.12,60,000/- whereas due to incorrect applica!on of mul!plier,
learned Tribunal has calculated the same to be Rs.15,12,000/-. Learned
Tribunal has further granted Rs.1,10,000/- under conven!onal heads
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059964
2023:PHHC:059964 6
whereas as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Na<onal
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC
680, the same ought to have been Rs.70,000/- in total.
10. Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, I find no
case is made out that merits interference with the impugned Award. I
find the compensa!on awarded to the appellants to be just and fair in
the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act
is a beneficial legisla!on yet, as cau!oned by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a
source of profit. Moreover, compensa!on awarded upon the death of a
near and dear loved one cannot be made a market nego!a!on, where
every penny has to be calculated and drawn. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur, (1999) 1 SCC 90 and Divisional
Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev [email protected], (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held
that the amount of compensa!on should be just and reasonable, it
should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same !me
it should not be a piCance. Thus, all that has to be determined in the
facts of a given case is, that the compensa!on accorded is 'just'. In my
considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a
very 'just' compensa!on, and therefore, does not warrant the
interference of this Court. In case of KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas 1994
Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059964
2023:PHHC:059964 7
sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for
determining the compensa!on.
11. In view of the above facts, I find no ground is made out
to interfere in the impugned Award. Present appeal accordingly stands
dismissed.
12. Pending applica!on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
24.04.2023 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059964
7 of 7
