Punjab-Haryana High Court
Reeta Rani And Another vs Bua Singh And Others on 25 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060449
2023:PHHC:060449 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
265 FAO-2190-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25.04.2023
Reeta Rani & Another
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Bua Singh & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Naveen Sharma (Moudgil), Advocate
for the appellants.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensa%on of Rs.12,39,600/- granted by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereina/er referred to as "the
learned Tribunal") vide Award dated 24.01.2020 passed in MACP Case
No.RT-210/2017 filed under Sec%on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereina/er referred to as "the Act"). Claimants are parents of
deceased-Vishamber Kumar @ Lucky.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on
the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that
deceased-Vishamber Kumar @ Lucky had died due to injuries suffered
by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 02.07.2017 due
to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Bolero Jeep bearing
registra%on No.PB-10FV-5231 (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
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060449
2023:PHHC:060449 2
compensa%on as above along with interest @ 7% per annum from the
date of filing the pe%%on %ll realisa%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.8,000/- per month whereas the deceased was
drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- per month;
b) that nothing has been granted by way of future
prospects;
c) that parents of the deceased/claimants are en%tled
to Rs.40,000/- each as filial consor%um;
d) that even rate of interest is on lower side.
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 appellants
have not produced any documentary evidence to prove income of the
deceased. Accordingly, learned Tribunal assessed no%onal income of the
deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month, on the basis of relevant Minimum
Wage no%fica%on issued by the Department of Labour & Industry. I find
no error in said assessment.
7. As per claimants' own case, deceased was 23 years old
at %me of death. Accordingly, Learned Tribunal has correctly added 40%
towards future prospects. Annual income of the deceased has thus,
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060449
2023:PHHC:060449 3
been calculated to be Rs.96,000/- + Rs.38,400/- = Rs.1,34,400/-. As the
deceased was unmarried at the %me of death, learned Tribunal has
correctly made deduc%on of 50% towards personal expenses in view of
law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corpora8on (2009) AIR (SC) 3104. Annual dependency of the
deceased comes to Rs.1,34,400/- - Rs.67,200/- = Rs.67,200/-. As the
deceased was 23 years of age at the %me of death, learned Tribunal has
correctly applied mul%plier of 18. Learned Tribunal has granted
Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate.
8. As per latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023 8tled as "Shri Ram General Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh Rawat & Others", a total of Rs.70,000/- can be
granted under conven%onal heads. Hon'ble Supreme Court, again, in
case of SLP (C) No. 16767 of 2022 %tled as "Mehmooda Bee & Others
Vs. Na8onal Insurance Co. Ltd". And in Civil Appeal No.6551 of 2022
%tled as "Bebi Giri Vs. Na8onal Insurance Co. Ltd.", has held that all
claimants would be en%tled to Rs. 70,000/- only under the conven%onal
heads. Accordingly, in the present case, at best an amount of Rs.40,000/-
more could have been granted to the appellants by way of filial
consor%um. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in (SC) SLP No.13931 of
2017 %tled as "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & Others",
has held that where difference in compensa%on is about 4 to 5 per cent
only, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such varia%on in
compensa%on is within permissible limits.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060449
2023:PHHC:060449 4
9. This abovesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has been followed by the Kerala High Court in "The Managing Director,
Divisional Controller Versus AlikuAy and Others" Law Finder Doc Id #
1885188. Relevant para 18 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-
"18. It is to be borne in mind, the accident occurred on
23,2,2019. It is more than 2 ½ years since the respondents 1 to 4
have been knocking at the doors of the Courts seeking compensa-
$on on account of the death of the bread-winner. It is trite law
that the Tribunal is permi(ed to do some guess work and also ex-
ercise its discre$on to fix the reasonable and just compensa$on,
for which there cannot be any straightjacket formula based on
mathema$cal precision. In New India Assurance Company
Vs. Vinish Jain and Others [(2018) 3 SCC 619], the Hon'ble Su-
preme Court has held that if the fixa$on of compensa$on is
within permissible limits, the courts should normally not interfere
with such awards".
10. Above said view has been reiterated by the Kerala High
Court in "Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Adila and
Others", Law Finder Doc ID # 1921609, paras 16 and 17 of which read as
under:-
"16. The other area of dispute is that the Tribunal a1er
awarding compensa$on under the conven$onal heads has
awarded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of love and affec$on and
Rs.10,000/- awarded towards pain and sufferings.
17. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v. Vineesh.J[2018 (3)
SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Appel-
late Court can permit varia$on of plus or minus 4 to 5 percent."
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060449
2023:PHHC:060449 5
11. No case law to the contrary has been cited by learned
counsel for the appellants.
12. 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 SheAy', (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 piMance. 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, which is in accordance with the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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
sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for
determining the compensa%on.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060449
2023:PHHC:060449 6
13. In view of the above facts, I find no ground is made out
to interfere in the impugned Award. Present appeal accordingly stands
dismissed.
14. 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:060449
6 of 6
