Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maya And Ors vs Sunil Kumar And Ors on 1 June, 2023
Page 1 of 4
FAO 183/2019(O&M)
2023:PHHC:079930
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO 183/2019(O&M)
Date of decision: 01.06.2023.
Smt. Maya and others
..................Appellants
Vs.
Sunil Kumar and others
..................Respondents
CORAM HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Nidhi Gupta, J.
CM 647-CII/2019
Since there is delay of 113 days in refiling the appeal, instant
application has been filed seeking condonation of said delay.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed
and delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.
CM 650-CII/2019
3. Since there is delay of 59 days in filing the appeal, instant
application has been filed seeking condonation of said delay.
4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed
and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Main Appeal
5. Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation of Rs.6.98 lacs granted by the Motor Accident
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2023.06.02 12:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO 183/2019(O&M)
2023:PHHC:079930
Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide
Award dated 7.12.2017 passed in MACP No.102/2016 filed u/s 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Claimants/appellants are 3 daughters aged 33, 28,26 years, and one son aged
45 years (at the time of filing appeal) of deceased-Rohtash Kumar, who was
62 years old at the time of death.
6. Ld. Tribunal on the appraisal of facts, pleadings and evidence
on record held that the deceased had died due to injuries suffered by him in
motor vehicular accident that took place on 10.9.2016 due to rash and
negligent driving of Camper bearing registration No.HR-16M-4407
(hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') being driven by respondent
no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no.3. The Tribunal
awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 7% per annum from
the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Liability to pay the
compensation was joint and several.
7. Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of
compensation on the sole ground that nothing has been granted by way of loss
of estate, and that as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay
Sethi, the appellants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- by way of loss of estate.
8. No other argument has been raised.
9. Heard ld. counsel.
10. I find no merit whatsoever in the argument raised by the ld.
counsel for the appellants and the same is liable to be rejected as, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain
and others, Law Finder Doc ID#977386' and followed by this Court in
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2023.06.02 12:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO 183/2019(O&M)
2023:PHHC:079930
Harpal Kaur and others v Sita Ram and others, Law Finder Doc Id #
921104; Narender Nayyar v Sheodan Singh and others, Law Finder Doc
Id # 626136; and Sajna Devi and others v Vijender Kumar and others,
Law Finder Doc Id # 921100, have held that major children of the deceased
are not entitled to compensation. In the present case, though this argument
was raised by the ld. counsel for the respondent Insurance Company before
the ld. Tribunal, however, the same has been rejected by the Tribunal in
contravention of the above said law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Nonetheless, it is an admitted fact that the appellants are all married and well
settled in their matrimonial homes. It is also admitted that the appellants had
no pecuniary dependence upon the income of the deceased. Accordingly, as
per established legal position, the appellants could not have been held to be
dependent upon the deceased, and were, therefore, not entitled to
compensation. In such a situation, needless to say, there is no question of
enhancement of compensation so awarded by the ld. Tribunal on a
misapprehension of the correct legal position in this regard.
11. Even otherwise, ld. Counsel for the appellants has only sought
addition of Rs.15,000/- by way of loss of estate. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Vinish Jain (supra) has held that where the difference in compensation is
about 4% to 5%, no interference in the Award is called for.
12. This aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has been followed by the Kerala High Court in The Managing Director,
Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and ors., Law Finder Doc Id #
1885188. Relevant para 18 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-
"18. It is to be borne in mind, the accident occurred on 23,2,2019. It
is more than 2 ½ years since the respondents 1 to 4 have been
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2023.06.02 12:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO 183/2019(O&M)
2023:PHHC:079930
knocking at the doors of the Courts seeking compensation on account
of the death of the bread winner. It is trite law that the Tribunal is
permitted to do some guess work and also exercise its discretion to fix
the reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any
straight jacket formula based on mathematical precision. In New
India Assurance Company v. Vinish Jain and others [(2018) 3 SCC
619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the fixation of
compensation is within permissible limits, the courts should normally
not interfere with such awards".
13. Above said view has been reiterated by the Kerala High Court
in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Adila and others, Law
Finder Doc ID # 1921609, paras 16 and 17 of which read as under:-
"16. The other area of dispute is that the Tribunal after awarding
compensation under the conventional heads has awarded Rs.75,000/-
towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- awarded towards
pain and sufferings.
17. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v. Vineesh.J [ 2018 (3) SCC
619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Appellate Court
can permit variation of plus or minus 4 to 5 percent".
14. Accordingly, in my opinion, in view of the undisputed legal
position as above, no case is made out that warrants interference in the impugned
Award.
15. For the reasons stated above, finding no merit in this appeal
the same is hereby dismissed.
16. Application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
01.06.2023. (Nidhi Gupta)
Joshi Judge
RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI
2023.06.02 12:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
