Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Kaur And Ors vs Satpal And Ors on 2 December, 2023
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153815
FAO-2668-2020 (O&M) -1-
229 2023:PHHC:153815
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-2668-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision :02.12.2023
Kuldeep Kaur and others ...Appellants
Vs.
Satpal and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Sahibjeet Singh Sandhu, Advocate for
Mr. S.S. Swaich, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Through this appeal the claimants pray for modification of the award
dated 09.09.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar
Mohali.
2. Late Sh. Harvinder Singh, aged about 50 years, died in a motor
vehicular accident on 17.04.2018. The only issue which requires consideration in
this case is with respect to the amount of compensation payable to the appellants.
3. Late Sh. Harvinder Singh has left behind widow and two children.
The elder son is aged about 24 years, whereas, the younger daughter is aged about
22 years. It has come in evidence that late Sh. Harvinder Singh was working as a
Supervisor-cum-Estimator with two different builders, namely, Everest Building
Planner, Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali and Balaji Marble & Building
Contractor, Chandigarh. The widow claimed that late Sh. Harvinder Singh was
getting monthly remuneration of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs.13,000/- from Everest
Building Planner, Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali and Balaji Marble &
Building Contractor, Chandigarh, respectively. However, the Tribunal refused to
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153815
FAO-2668-2020 (O&M) -2-
rely upon the same on the ground that the account books of the aforesaid firms
have not been produced.
4. It has come in evidence that late Sh. Harvinder Singh was working as
Supervisor-cum-Estimator for the last 25 years. He was working two different
builders. His daughter is studying in Bombay. He had purchased a laptop in the
year 2012, whereas, LED TV on EMI of Rs. 2,100/- per month in the year 2017.
He also took a scooter loan, for which, he was paying Rs.2,500/- per month. He
had also invested certain amount in LIC and was on an average paying premium
of Rs.2,000/- per month for himself, his wife and children. His widow came in the
witness box and stated that the family was spending Rs.27,000/- on payment of
EMIs, ration, household expenses, electricity bills, study and accommodation
expenses of the daughter.
5. The Tribunal has assessed the income @ 12,000/- per month.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at
length and with their able assistance perused the paper book alongwith the record
produced by learned counsel representing the appellants.
7. Sh. Kulvinder Singh, appeared on behalf of Everest Building
Planner, Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. He admitted that he is not
maintaining books of accounts. However, he on oath stated that their firm was
paying Rs.15,000/- P.M. to the deceased. Sh. Sikander Kumar, appeared on behalf
of Balaji Marble & Building Contractor, Chandigarh. He was not questioned on
the books of accounts. The overwhelming evidence has been produced to prove
that late Sh. Harvinder Singh was working as Supervisor-Cum-Estimator. The
family is residing near Chandigarh, when the accident took place, the deceased
was riding his bike.
8. The learned counsel representing the respondents vehemently
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153815
FAO-2668-2020 (O&M) -3-
contends that the deduction should be 1/3rd and not 1/4th.
9. This Court has considered the submissions. The parents always try
to give best education and facilities to their children. A father belonging to middle
class family would not spend more than 1/4th on himself particularly when he has
two grown up children.
10. As per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others,
2018 (4) RCR (Civil) 333 which has been reiterated by another Division Bench in
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Somwati and others, Civil Appeal No.3093 of
2020, decided on 07.09.2020, and by a three Judge Bench in United India
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others,
(2020) SCC Online 410, in which it has been approved that each claimant is
entitled to Rs.40,000/- as consortium. Further, it is correct that the Tribunal has
erred in deducting 1/3rd from the income of the deceased towards his personal and
living expenses which should have been one half.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal has erred in
assessing the income only at Rs. 12,000/- per month. Taking into consideration
the entire evidence, it is considered appropriate to assess the income of the
deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month. Since there were four family members
including the deceased, therefore, the deduction should be of 1/4th share towards
self expenses. On account of increase in the income in future, the appellant shall
be entitled to 25% addition. All the three dependents shall be entitled @
Rs.40,000/- towards the loss of consortium.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation is re-worked as under:-
Heads Compensation Awarded by Compensation awarded by
MACT High Court
Monthly income assessed Rs. 12,000/- per month Rs. 20,000/-
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153815
FAO-2668-2020 (O&M) -4-
Future Prospects 25% Rs.3,000/- Rs.5,000/-
(-) Deduction Rs. 3750/- per month(1/4th) Rs.6250/- per month(1/4th)
Dependency Rs.11250/- per month Rs.18750/- per month
Annual Dependency Rs.11250x12=135000/- Rs.18750x12=225000/-
Multiplier 13 Rs.11250x12x13=17,55,000 Rs.18750x12x13=29,25,000
Conventional Heads NIL
-Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
-Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
-Consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.120,000/-
Total = 1,50,000/-
Total Amount of Rs.16,30,000/- Rs.30,75,000/-
Compensation
Compensation awarded by the High Court :Rs.30,75,000/-
(-)Compensation Awarded by the MACT :Rs. 16,30,000/-
Enhanced Compensation :Rs. 14,45,000/-
13. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
14. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed
of.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
02.12.2023 JUDGE
neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153815
4 of 4
