Sushila And Ors vs Devender And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 9553 P&H

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9553 P&H
Judgement Date : 7 July, 2023

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sushila And Ors vs Devender And Ors on 7 July, 2023

                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085656




210                                                               2023:PHHC:085656



       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                                                      F.A.O. No. 3724 of 2015

                                                 Date of Decision: 07.07.2023


Smt. Sushila and Others
                                                                   ... Appellant(s)

                                        Versus

Devender and Others
                                                                ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:     Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate
             for the appellant(s).

             Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate
             for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the

compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat

(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal").

2. The appellants are the claimants. The correctness of the

findings arrived at by the Tribunal with regard to the involvement of the

vehicle, the accident having occurred due to the rash and negligent driving

of respondent No.1-Devender, the driver of the offending truck and the

liability of the respondent No.3-insurance company is not being questioned.

Hence, the only subsisting question is with respect to the appropriate amount

of compensation payable to the claimants.

3. Rajender, aged 44 years, died in an automobile accident on

23.02.2013. He was the owner of the land measuring 2½ acres. He is also

stated to be earning some amount by selling milk. The claimants stated that 1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085656

2023:PHHC:085656

the deceased was earning ₹15,000/- per month. The Tribunal assessed the

income of the deceased @ ₹6,000/- per month.

4. The learned counsel representing the appellants contends that

the Tribunal has assessed the income which is lower than the income

equivalent to an unskilled worker, whereas, the deceased was the owner of

the land measuring 2½ acres, which is located in District Jind (Haryana). In

this area, ordinarily, the farmers get two good crops during the year. Hence,

the income assessed by the Tribunal is ridiculously low. The deceased

cannot be equated with an unskilled worker for the purpose of minimum

wages. Smt. Sushila, widow of the deceased, has appeared in the evidence

and stated that the deceased was earning ₹15,000/- per month from his milk

dairy and agricultural land. The details of the ownership of the deceased has

been disclosed. Even the copy of jamabandi was produced. A copy of the J-

Form evidencing the sale of crop and the copy of the accounts of selling

milk were also produced.

5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the income claimed by the

widow of the deceased is not excessive. Moreover, the Tribunal has failed to

grant 25% enhancement in the income on account of future income as laid

down by the five Judges Bench in National Insurance Company Limited

v. Pranay Sethi & Others (2017) 16 SCC 680.

6. Under the conventional heads, namely funeral expenses, loss of

estate and consortium, the Tribunal has not granted appropriate amount. The

deceased has left behind as many as six claimants including widow, aged

parents and three minor school going children.

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085656

2023:PHHC:085656

7. As far as the loss of consortium, a three Judges Bench of the

Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder

Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others (2020) SCConline SC 410, after

considering the correctness of the judgment passed in Magma General

Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others

2018(4) RCR (Civil) 333, held that each of the dependent is entitled to

individual loss of consortium @ ₹40,000/- which now stands enhanced to

₹44,000/-.

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the deduction towards self-

expenses to the extent of 1/4th has correctly been applied by the Tribunal.

The correctness of the application of multiplier of 14 is not disputed.

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the appeal filed by the

claimants is allowed. The enhanced amount of compensation is worked out

as under:-

Sr. No. Heads under which the Amount awarded Amount awarded amount awarded by the Tribunal (In by the High Court ₹) (In ₹) A) Monthly Income 6,000.00 15,000.00 B) Future Prospects NIL 3,750.00 (25% of the income assessed) C) Income Assessed after NIL 18,750.00 adding future prospects D) Deduction on account of his 4,500.00 14,062.50 own expenses. (6,000 - 1,500 i.e. (18,750-4,687.50 1/4th of the monthly i.e. income) 1/4th of the monthly income) E) Total dependency Assessed 4,500.00 14,062.50 per month F) Annual dependency 54,000.00 1,68,750.00 (4,500 x 12) (14,062.50 X 12) G) Amount assessed after 7,56,000.00 23,62,500.00 applying Multiplier (54,000 x 14) (1,68,750 x 14)

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085656

2023:PHHC:085656

Sr. No. Heads under which the Amount awarded Amount awarded amount awarded by the Tribunal (In by the High Court ₹) (In ₹) H) Funeral Expenses 25,000.00 16,500.00 I) Loss of Estate 20,000.00 16,500.00 J) Loss of Consortium to be 1,00,000.00 2,64,000.00 awarded @ ₹40,000/- to all (44,000x6) the four claimants.

K) Total compensation awarded 9,01,000.00 26,59,500.00 L) Amount of compensation 17,58,500/-

enhanced by this Court (26,59,500 - 9,01,000)

9. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization on the

enhanced amount of compensation.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge July 07, 2023 "DK"