Punjab-Haryana High Court
Luxmi & Ors vs Ritesh & Ors on 11 January, 2023
FAO-8026-2016 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-8026-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.01.2023
Luxmi and others ... Appellants
Versus
Ritesh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: Ms. Amrita Nagpal, Advocate
for the appellants.
Service of respondents No.1 and 2 dispensed with
Vide order dated 20.09.2018.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
3 2 ie ok
RITU TAGORE, J (ORAL)
1. Appellants-claimants have raised challenge to the award dated
07.05.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Karnal on the
ground of inadequate compensation.
2. The deceased Sonu, a sole breadwinner of the family of
claimants, died in a motor vehicular accident dated 11.08.2014 caused by
respondent No.1/driver by driving the offending vehicle bearing registration
No. CH-01-AH-9668, in a rash and negligent manner.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The respondents (driver, owner and insurer) put up
an appearance and filed their respective pleadings. After the contest, ld.
Tribunal granted Rs.14,21,600/- as compensation.
4. Ld. counsel for the claimants restricts the prayer that
MANPREET SINGH COMpensation should be recalculated, based on the directions laid down by
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
MANPREET SINGH
2023.01.13 16:20
FAO-8026-2016 2
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the judgments titled 'National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi_and others' (2017) 16 SCC 680, N.
Jayasree and Ors. vs. Cholamandlam MS General Ins. Co. Ltd.'2021 ACJ
2685and 'Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu_ Ram @
Chuhru Ram and others' (2018) 18 SCC 130 because the ld. Tribunal has
failed to account for future prospects on the assessed income of deceased and
compensation under the conventional heads.
5. Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company has failed to dispute the
contentions as raised above. The liability of the Insurance Company is not in
dispute in this appeal. The assessment of the income of deceased, his age i.e.
30 years, income at Rs. 8,100/- p.m., multiplier and deduction of 1/3 towards
personal expenses as adopted by the Ld. Tribunal are also not under challenge.
6. Keeping in view the ratio of the above cited judgments and
Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and
another' 2023 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 44, of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
compensation is recalculated as under:-
Sr. Heads Amount in Rs.
No.
1. Income Rs.8,100/-
2. 40% future prospects (Rs.8,100) Rs.11,340/-
3. 1/3™ deduction towards personal Rs.3,780/-
expenses
4. Total income Rs.7,560/-
5. Multiplier 17 i.e. Rs.7,560 x 12 x 17 Rs.15,42,240/-
(being the age 30 years)
6. Loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.33,000/-
(Rs.16,500/- each per authority)
7. | Loss of consortium (spousal, filial and Rs.1,32,000/-
parental) i.e. Rs. 44,000/- x 3
8. Litigation expenses per authority Rs.25,000/-
Sidram (supra)
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
MANPREET SINGH
2023.01.13 16:20
FAO-8026-2016 3
9. Total Compensation Rs.17,32,240
10. Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.14,21,600/-
11. | Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.3,10,640/-
7. The Insurance company-respondent No.3, is hereby directed to
pay the claimants-appellants the enhanced amount of compensation
Rs.3,10,640/- (three lakh ten thousand six hundred and fourty only) awarded
hereinabove, as against the amount awarded by the Ld. Tribunal, at the rate of
interest as granted by the Ld. Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim
petition till its realization, within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment, with the Ld.Tribunal. Remaining
conditions of disbursal of the amount as given by the Ld. Tribunal shall
remain unaltered. Needless to mention that the amount, if any, already
deposited by the insurance company shall be adjusted.
8. An affidavit accompanying the application to condone delay of 3
days in filing this appeal is duly filed by the claimants. For the reasons
mentioned therein, the delay stands condoned.
9. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to
costs.
10. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stand disposed of.
(RITU TAGORE)
JUDGE
January 11, 2023
Manpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
