Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lali And Others vs Nihal Singh And Others on 16 January, 2023
FAO-3645-2002(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-3645-2002(O&M)
Date of decision:-16.1.2023
Smt.Lali and others
...Appellants
Versus
Nihal Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Ms.Shaveta Sanghi, Advocate for
Mr.Aditya Sanghi, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. Petitioners/claimants Smt.Lali - widow, Birender and Daya
Ram - minor sons and Ms.Poonam - minor daughter of Babu Lal, an
unfortunate victim of a road side accident had brought a claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988(hereinafter referred to
as the Act) before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter
referred to as the Tribunal) against Nihal Singh - driver, Raj Kumar -
owner and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Fatehabad - insurer of Tata-
608 bearing No.RJ-31G/1443 (hereinafter referred to as the offending
vehicle), claiming compensation of Rs.25 lakhs. In the claim petition, the
petitioners impleaded Smt.Sunita, a married daughter of Babu Lal as
proforma respondent No.4.
1 of 5
FAO-3645-2002(O&M) -2-
2. As per the case of the claimants, on 7.4.2001 while deceased
Babu Lal along with his brother Hari Ram were returning to their village
from Narnaul on bicycles with deceased going ahead of Hari Ram at
about 5:30/6:00 p.m., while they were in the area near power house, then
the offending vehicle driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent
No.1 Nihal Singh came from behind and hit the bicycle of deceased,
resultantly, he got crushed under front wheel of the offending vehicle,
although he was taken to Civil Hospital, Narnaul but he was declared
brought dead.
Formal FIR with regard to the accident was recorded on the
basis of statement of Hari Ram. The claimants had brought the claim
petition in question contending that the deceased was working as Naib
Sadar Kanungo in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul drawing
salary of Rs.9319/- per month and the claimants were dependent upon his
earnings.
3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents,
who put in appearance. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed joint written
statement, whereas respondent No.3 came up with a separate written
statement. All the three respondents contested the claim petition
vehemently praying for its dismissal. Whereas proforma respondent No.4
in her separate written statement conceding the claim of the claimants
stating that she has no objection, if the amount of compensation was
disbursed to the claimants.
4. Issues on merits were framed. The parties were afforded
adequate opportunities to lead their evidence in support of their respective
2 of 5
FAO-3645-2002(O&M) -3-
claims.
5. After hearing arguments, the Tribunal vide award dated
8.4.2002 accepted the claim petition and granted compensation of
Rs.8,28,400/- to the claimants, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly
and severally with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till realization.
6. This award left the claimants aggrieved and they have
approached this Court by filing the present appeal seeking enhancement
of the compensation awarded to the claimants.
7. Notice of the appeal was given to respondent No.3 -
insurance company, which put in appearance through counsel.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going
through the record.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants has confined her
arguments on three points, firstly with regard to non-addition of future
prospects in the income of the deceased; secondly deduction to the extent
of 1/3rd having wrongly been made towards personal and living expenses
of the deceased when considering the number of the dependent family
members, it should have been 1/4th and thirdly with regard to
compensation under the head loss of consortium having been awarded to
petitioner No.1 only and that too on lower side.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 - insurance company in
all fairness has conceded these points stating that as per law, the needful is
required to be done by way of modification in the impugned award.
11. The Tribunal had considered the date of birth of the deceased
3 of 5
FAO-3645-2002(O&M) -4-
to be 12.3.1950 as per the matriculation certificate and his age on the date
of accident as 51 years. His occupation was found to be that of Naib Sadar
Kanungo in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul getting total
salary of Rs.9,319/- per month including all the emoluments. In terms of
judgment National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi
and Ors., 2017(4) RCR(Civil)1009, when the deceased was more than 50
years, addition of 15% is to be made on the established income towards
future prospects. Doing that the monthly income of the deceased comes
out to Rs.10,716/-(9319 + 1397).
12. Keeping in view the number of dependent family members of
the deceased being four, deduction to the extent of 1/4th is to be made to
the income of the deceased as personal expenses. Doing that, the monthly
dependency of the claimants comes out to Rs.8037 ( 10,716 - 2679) and
annual dependency comes out to Rs. 8037 x 12 = Rs.96444/-.
13. The Tribunal has used multiplier of 11, which keeping in
view the age of the deceased has been properly used. Doing that the
compensation payable comes out to Rs. 96444 x 11 = 10,60,884/-.
14. Under the conventional heads, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/ to petitioner No.1
Smt.Lali, who is widow of deceased as consortium amount.
15. However, the legal position in that regard has been clarified
in subsequent judgment by the Apex Court i.e. Magma General
Insurance Co.Ltd. Versus Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.,
2018(4) RCR(Civil) 333, wherein it was observed that amount of
Rs.40,000/- each is to be awarded to every claimant for filial consortium
4 of 5
FAO-3645-2002(O&M) -5-
and in view of judgment National Insurance Company Limited Versus
Pranay Sethi and Ors.(supra), which provides that while working out the
compensation payable under the conventional heads, namely, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, amount of Rs.15,000,
Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-, respectively should be awarded.
16. Doing that the compensation comes out to be Rs.12,50,884/-
(10,60,884+40000+40000+40000+40000+15000+15000).
17. In this way, the enhanced amount comes out to Rs.4,22,484/-
( 12,50,884 - 828400).
18. The claimants would be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the appeal till actual realization on the
enhanced amount of Rs.4,22,484 /-. The apportionment and manner of
payment amongst claimants shall remain the same as directed in the
impugned award except if the minor claimants have attained majority,
subject to their furnishing proof in that regard their shares be released to
them directly instead of depositing those in the form of FDRs with some
nationalized bank.
19. With such modification, the appeal is allowed partly with
costs.
16.1.2023 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
