Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roshni Devi And Ors vs Satish Kumar And Ors on 25 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062295
2023:PHHC:062295 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
291 FAO-4063-2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25.04.2023
Smt. Roshni Devi & Others
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Sa4sh Kumar & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-12113-CII-2014
This is an applica&on under Sec&on 5(1) Chapter-I Part-
A Volume-5 of the High Court Rules and Orders read with Sec&on 151 of
Code of Civil Procedure seeking condona&on of delay of 511 days in re-
filing the appeal.
A3er going through the contents of the applica&on, the
same is allowed subject to all just excep&ons.
MAIN CASE
Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensa&on of Rs.7,70,000/- granted by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (hereina3er referred to as "the
learned Tribunal") vide Award dated 15.06.2012 passed in MACT Pe&&on
No.22 of 2011 filed under Sec&on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062295
2023:PHHC:062295 2
(hereina3er referred to as "the Act"). Claimants are widow, two minor
children and father of deceased-Jagdish.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on
the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that
deceased-Jagdish had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor
vehicular accident that took place on 02.01.2011 due to rash and
negligent driving of canter Ashoka Leyland 1215 bearing registra&on
No.HR-62-3278 (hereina3er 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 interest @ 9% 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 although, it was the pleaded case of the
appellants before the learned Tribunal that deceased was running an
auto workshop at Agroha Chowk, and was also an agriculturist and was
earning Rs.25,000/- per month from both the pursuits yet, learned
Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as only Rs.6000/- per month,
which is on lower side;
b) that no doubt, 28 acres of land is in the name of
father of the deceased/ claimant No.4. However, he is 70-years old and
is unable to look a3er the land;
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062295
2023:PHHC:062295 3
c) that learned Tribunal has made deduc&on of 1/3rd
towards personal expenses, however, keeping in mind that claimants are
four in number, deduc&on of 1/4th ought to be made;
d) that rate of interest be enhanced from 9% to 12%;
e) that nothing has been granted by way of future
prospects; and
f) that only Rs.20,000/- has been granted towards loss
of consor&um, and the claimants are en&tled to Rs.44,000/- towards loss
of consor&um.
g) In support of his conten&on, learned counsel for the
appellants relies upon judgment of this Court in Harvinder Kaur Vs.
Amar Singh Law Finder Doc ID # 1669426, to submit that in the said
case, the accident was of the year 1997 and in similar circumstances
where the deceased was an agriculturist prior to his death and owner of
some land, the services rendered by him in managing and cul&va&ng the
land for cul&va&ng in terms of money had been assessed by this Court @
Rs.2,000/- per month. Learned counsel further relies upon judgment of
this Court in Gurdeep Kaur (widow) Vs. Tarsem Singh Law Finder Doc ID
# 138520, to submit that in the said case, the accident was of the year
1989 and deceased was an agriculturist and owner of about 7 acres of
land, and services for managing the land was quan&fied by this Court in
terms of money @ Rs.3,000/- per month.
4. In response, it is submiGed by learned counsel for
respondent No.3/Insurance Company:
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062295
2023:PHHC:062295 4
a) that income of the deceased as assessed by the
learned Tribunal is correct;
b) that claimant No.4 being father of the deceased
cannot be taken as his dependent.
c) that as regards consor&um, learned counsel for
respondent No.3 relies upon latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023 4tled as "Shri Ram General Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh Rawat & Others", to submit that in the said
judgment it has been held that a total amount of Rs.70,000/- can be
awarded under conven&onal heads i.e. only a total amount of Rs.40,000/-
can be awarded under the head of consor&um.
5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the par&es.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the par&es.
7. I have given my thoughIul considera&on to the rival
submissions made on behalf of the par&es. It remains undisputed on
record that father of the deceased/claimant/appellant No.4 is owner of
28 acres of land. It is also clear from the record that prior to death, the
deceased was managing and cul&va&ng the land of his father, for which
services, learned Tribunal has assessed Rs.1,200/- as value of services for
managing the agricultural land. In my view, the said amount is on lower
side, especially keeping in view the judgments of this Court cited by
learned counsel for the appellants in case of Gurdeep Kaur (supra) and
Harvinder Kaur (supra) wherein for the accidents of year 1989 and 1997
respec&vely, this Court had assessed Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/-
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062295
2023:PHHC:062295 5
respec&vely, to be granted for services rendered by the deceased for
managing and cul&va&ng the land. In the present case, the accident
being of the year 2011, in my opinion, it would be just and fair to assess
said amount payable to the deceased for services rendered in cul&va&ng
and managing the land @ Rs.5,200/- per month. No judgment to the
contrary has been cited by learned counsel for respondent
No.3/Insurance Company in this respect.
8. Further, on the basis of evidence led by the claimants
that the deceased was running an auto workshop at Agroha Chowk,
learned Tribunal had assessed no&onal income of the deceased as
Rs.4,800/- per month on the basis of relevant Minimum Wage
no&fica&on for the year 2010-11. AdmiGedly, respondents had led no
evidence in rebuGal in this regard either before the learned Tribunal, or
even before this Court. Accordingly, total monthly income of the
deceased comes to Rs.5,200/- + Rs.4,800/- = Rs.10,000/- per month.
9. As the deceased was proven to be 40 years of age at the
&me of death therefore, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Na4onal Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680, addi&on of 40% has to be made towards
future prospects.
10. In respect of deduc&on, learned Tribunal has made a
deduc&on of 1/3rd towards personal expenses as it has come on record
that claimant No.4/father of the deceased was owner of 28 acres of land
and had a separate ra&on card. However, given the age of the father of the
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062295
2023:PHHC:062295 6
deceased, it is but trite to suggest that despite being 70 years of age, he
will s&ll be able to &ll the land. In any event, though he may be owner of
28 acres of land and may have a separate ra&on card, it has been
established on record that it was the deceased who was managing the said
land on behalf of his father. Even nothing to the contrary has been proved
by the respondent. Accordingly, it is held that father of the deceased was
dependent on the deceased and therefore, deduc&on of 1/4 th should be
made towards personal expenses.
11. As deceased was 40 years of age, mul&plier of 15 is
applicable.
12. As regards conven&onal heads, learned counsel for
respondent No.3/Insurance Company has cited judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Bhagat Singh Rawat (supra) wherein it has been
clearly held that a total sum of Rs.70,000/- can be granted under
conven&onal heads. However, it has also been held therein that escala&on
of 10% has to be granted while calcula&ng amount admissible under
conven&onal heads. No judgement to the country has been cited on behalf
of the claimants. Accordingly, appellants are granted a sum of Rs.44,000/-
towards consor&um; Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/-
towards funeral expenses, i.e. a total of Rs.77,000/- under the
conven&onal heads.
13. In view of the discussion above, Compensa&on
admissible to the appellants is re-worked as follows:-
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062295
2023:PHHC:062295 7
HEADS By this Court By MACT
Income Rs.10,000/- per month Rs.4,800/- + Rs.1,200/-
per month
Future prospects Rs.4,000/- --
(@40%)
Rs.10,000/- +
Rs.4,000/- =
Rs.14,000/-
Annual income Rs.14,000/- x 12 = Rs.72,000/-
Rs.1,68,000/-
Deduc&on (1/4th) Rs.42,000/- 1/3rd
Rs.1,68,000/- -
Rs.42,000/- =
Rs.1,26,000/-
Mul&plier (15) Rs.1,26,000/- x 15 = 15
Rs.18,90,000/-
Consor&um Rs.44,000/- Rs.20,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.10,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.20,000/-
Total 19,67,000/- Rs.7,70,000/-
Enhanced by Rs.11,97,000/-
14. Claimants shall be en&tled to interest @9% on
enhanced compensa&on from date of filing claim pe&&on &ll realisa&on.
Ra&o of appor&onment and manner of disbursement of enhanced
compensa&on, as determined by the learned Tribunal is maintained. In
view of the above facts and discussion, present appeal accordingly,
stands partly allowed and disposed of as above.
15. Pending applica&on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
25.04.2023 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062295
7 of 7
