Punjab-Haryana High Court
Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Jai Parkash And Ors on 20 January, 2023
XOBJC-53-CII-2013 in/and -1-
FAO No.4800 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R-815 XOBJC-53-CII-2013 in/and
FAO No.4800 of 2011
Reserved on : 17.01.2023
Date of Decision : 20.01.2023
Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant
VERSUS
Jai Parkash and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate
for respondent nos.1 to 4/cross-obejctors.
Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for respondent nos.5 and 6.
ALKA SARIN, J.
By way of the present order, FAO No.4800 of 2011 and the
cross objections (XOBJC-53-CII-2013) preferred by the claimant-
respondent Nos.1 to 4 are being disposed off.
The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present
appeal against the award dated 25.05.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') on the
ground of high quantum, awarded to the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 4 on
account of death of Sombir alias Sonu (hereinafter referred to as the
'deceased') in a motor vehicle accident with truck bearing registration
no.HR-69A-7544 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle'). The
cross objections have been preferred by the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 4
for enhancement of the compensation as granted by the Tribunal.
JITENDER KUMAR
2023.01.20 16:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
XOBJC-53-CII-2013 in/and -2-
FAO No.4800 of 2011
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would
contend that the present was a case of contributory negligence. It is further
the contention that the law as it stood at the time the matter was decided by
the Tribunal, the amount awarded by the Tribunal was in excess.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-
respondent Nos.1 to 4 has contended that the deceased at the time of the
accident was 19 years of age and the minimum wages at the time of the
accident were Rs.4348/-. It is further the contention that now as per the law
laid down in the cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121]; National Insurance Company
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680]; Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.
[(2018) 18 SCC 130]; and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S
General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021 (4) RCR (Civil) 642], a
multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied whereas the Tribunal had
applied a multiplier of 13 keeping in view the age of the parents. It is further
the contention that addition of 40% ought to have been allowed towards
future prospects. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 4 has
further contended that amounts also ought to have been awarded under the
conventional heads as well as loss of consortium.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The Tribunal in the present case has awarded the following
compensation :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly income of the deceased Rs.4,000/-
2 Annual dependency of the claimants [4000 - 1300] =
after deduction of 1/3rd Rs.2,700/-
JITENDER KUMAR
2023.01.20 16:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
XOBJC-53-CII-2013 in/and -3-
FAO No.4800 of 2011
3 Annual income of the deceased after [2700 x 12 x 13] =
applying the multiplier of 13 Rs.4,21,200/-
4 Amount towards transportation, Rs.10,000/-
funeral expenses
Total Compensation Rs.4,31,200/-
First of all, dealing with the argument raised by learned counsel
for the appellant-Insurance Company that the present case was a case of
contributory negligence, the said argument deserves to be rejected on the
ground that there was sufficient evidence on the record to show that the
offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. PW4
Sudhir, who is the author of the FIR and an eye-witness, has stated that the
accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle. There is not an iota of evidence on the record to show that there was
any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Thus, the argument
of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company stands rejected.
The second argument raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company that the Tribunal had awarded the
compensation in excess as per the law prevailing at that point of time and
hence the amount should be reduced, also deserves to be rejected. It is trite
that an appeal is a continuation of the proceedings and needs to be decided
in view of the law prevailing at the time of deciding the appeal. Any change
in law which has taken place between the date of decree and the decision of
the appeal has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the argument stands
rejected.
The Tribunal in the present case has assessed the notional
income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-. However, the same ought to have
JITENDER KUMAR
been assessed on the basis of minimum wages. The minimum wages, as per
2023.01.20 16:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
XOBJC-53-CII-2013 in/and -4-
FAO No.4800 of 2011
the counsel for the parties, prevalent at the time of the accident were
Rs.4,348/- per month. Being a bachelor, a deduction of 50% would need to
be applied. Further 40% addition would also have to be made keeping in
view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to
by counsel for the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 4. The Tribunal has applied
a multiplier of '13' keeping in mind the age of parents of the deceased
whereas a multiplier of '18' as per age of the deceased had to be applied in
the present case. Further, under the conventional heads also a cumulative
amount of Rs.33,000/- would be payable. The deceased in the present case
was a 19 years old boy and there is no evidence on the record that he was
earning at the time of his death. Hence, claimant-respondent Nos.3 and 4,
who are siblings of the deceased, cannot be held to be dependent on the
deceased. However, they would be entitled to compensation towards loss of
consortium under the head of filial consortium. In view thereof, Rs.44,000/-
each is awarded to both the parents and Rs.44,000/- each to the two siblings.
In view of the above, the enhanced compensation to which the
claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 4 are entitled is re-worked as under :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Annual Income of the deceased [4348 x 12] =
Rs.52,176/-
2 Annual dependency of the claimants [52176 - 26088] =
after deduction of 50% Rs.26,088/-
3 Future prospects @ 40% [26088 + 10435] =
Rs.36,523/-
4 Multiplier of 18 [36523 x 18] =
Rs.6,57,414/-
5 Loss of Consortium
(i) Filial (parents and 2 siblings) Rs.1,76,000/- (44000 x 4)
6 Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-
7 Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-
JITENDER KUMAR
2023.01.20 16:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
XOBJC-53-CII-2013 in/and -5-
FAO No.4800 of 2011
Total Compensation Rs.8,66,414/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.4,31,200/-
Enhanced amount Rs.4,35,214/-
The amount in excess of and over and above the amount
awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% from the date of
filing of the claim petition till realization of the entire amount.
Barring the amount as awarded to the siblings under the head
filial consortium, the remaining compensation shall be apportioned between
the parents equally. The appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is
accordingly dismissed. The cross objections filed by the claimant-respondent
Nos.1 to 4 stand allowed and the award stands modified accordingly.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
20.01.2023 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
JITENDER KUMAR
2023.01.20 16:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
