Punjab-Haryana High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Dinesh & Ors on 2 September, 2023
2023:PHHC:115336
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-4620-2014 (O&M) and
Date of Decision: September 02, 2023
New India Assurance Company Ltd.
...Appellant
VERSUS
Dinesh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present: Mr.R.C.Kapoor, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Arun Abrol, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Respondent No.4-ex parte.
None for respondent No.5.
****
ARCHANA PURI, J.
The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company,
thereby, assailing the Award dated 10.04.2014 vide which, compensation
was granted to the respondents-claimants, on account of death of Satinder
Kumar alias Bittu, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on
30.04.2012.
On appraisal of the evidence brought on record, learned
Tribunal vide impugned Award had granted compensation to the extent of
Rs.19,97,200/- to the respondents-claimants.
Feeling aggrieved by the extent of compensation, so granted,
VINEET GULATI
2023.09.05 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:115336
the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal, thereby, questioning the
quantum of compensation, so granted to the respondents-claimants.
So far as the fact of accident and manner of taking place of the
same, as well as the liability, so fastened upon the driver, owner and insurer
of the offending vehicle, to be joint and several are concerned, it is pertinent
to mention that no appeal, as such, has been filed by the aforesaid persons, to
dispute the liability, so fastened upon them and thus, qua these issues, the
findings, so recorded by learned Tribunal have attained finality. It is now
only the dispute, vis-a-vis, quantum of compensation.
The specific pleaded case of the respondents-claimants is that
deceased Satinder Kumar alias Bittu was 45 years old and he was
shopkeeper and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. However, learned counsel
for the Insurance Company has submitted that even though, the respondents-
claimants had asserted about the deceased to be a shopkeeper, but no
satisfactory evidence, relating to the same, as such, has come on record. No
detail, of what kind of shop was being run by the deceased, has been proved.
In the given circumstances, it is submitted that the earnings ought to be
taken as a casual labourer and precisely, on this account, while assessing the
income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- and working upon, the compensation
needs to be scaled down.
However, the aforesaid submission is bereft of merits. Firstly,
it is pertinent to mention that the Motor Vehicle Act is a benevolent piece of
legislation and it does not require strict rules of evidence. Keeping in view
the same, it is essential to mention that claimant No.1-Dinesh, who is widow
of the deceased, herself has stepped into witness box as PW-2 and she has
VINEET GULATI
2023.09.05 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:115336
categorically deposed about deceased (her husband) to be earning
Rs.25,000/- per month from the shop, which he was running. No cross-
examination, as such, has been conducted by the Insurance Company, vis-a-
vis, the deceased, running a shop. Even though, it has come in the cross-
examination of PW-2 Dinesh, that she had expressed her inability to produce
any document regarding Rs.25,000/- as monthly income of her husband, but
however, his indulgence in the shop-keeping, as such, has never been
disputed in the cross-examination.
Similarly, PW-1 Mangat Rai, who is an eye witness to the accident, in
his affidavit, has also stated about deceased to be earning Rs.25,000/- per
month, from the shop, he was running and qua this witness also, no cross-
examination, as such, has been conducted to dispute running of the shop by
the deceased, even though, the extent of earnings, as such, has been disputed
by way of giving a suggestion, which has been though denied.
In such circumstances, as now submitted by learned counsel for
the appellant, the deceased, as such, cannot be, in the minimum, considered
as casual labourer. However, the assertion of the extent of his earnings to be
Rs.25,000/- per month, does not stand established, but the fact of running a
shop, has not been disputed, by way of cross-examination.
In the light of the same, learned Tribunal had appropriately not
considered the deceased as casual labourer and in the modest estimate, had
taken the earnings of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month. The guess
work, so done by learned Tribunal is appropriate, which calls for no
interference, so far as, extent of earnings of the deceased is concerned.
Taking into consideration, the same extent of earnings, it is
VINEET GULATI
2023.09.05 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:115336
essential to note that in the tabular form, learned Tribunal had worked upon
the compensation, so granted, which is herein reproduced:-
Date of accident 30.04.2012
Age of the 45 years
deceased
Claimants: Dinesh widow, Kitty
daughter and Manu
minor son
Heads of claim Tribunal
Sr. No. Amount (Rs.)
1. Income (annual) 1,44,000/-
2. Add 30% increase 43,200/-=1,87,200/-
3. Deduction 1/3 62,400 = 1,24,800/-
4. Multiplicand 45 years
(annualized)
6. Loss of dependence 17,47,200/-
7. Loss of consortium 1,00,000/-
8. Loss of care and 1,00,000/-
guidance to minor child
9. Loss of estate 25,000/-
10. Funeral expenses 25,000/-
Total 19,97,200/-
However, aforesaid detail calls for re-computation, as
compensation had been granted under various heads, where it ought not to
have been granted and in some of the heads, it has been granted more than,
what was required to be granted.
From the evidence on record, it stands established that the date
VINEET GULATI
of birth of the deceased was 20.08.1967. The accident had taken place on
2023.09.05 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:115336
30.04.2004. So working upon, at the relevant time, the deceased was 45
years old.
While taking the earnings of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per
month, the annual earnings is worked upon as Rs.1,44,000/-. Considering
the number of dependents to be three, as per Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the deduction of
1/3rd is to be made towards personal expenses and thus, the residue earnings
comes to be Rs.1,44,000-48,000(1/3rd)=Rs.96,000/-
However, keeping in view the age of the deceased and nature of
avocation, so followed, as already observed aforesaid, as per National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR
(Civil) 1009, an addition of 25% has to be made in the earnings, on the
count of future prospects. As such, the annual earnings of the deceased
comes to be Rs.96,000+24,000(25%)=Rs.1,20,000/-.
As per Sarla Verma's case (supra), considering the age of the
deceased, '14' is the suitable multiplier to be applied. Thus, by applying the
same, the loss of dependency comes to be Rs.1,20,000x14=Rs.16,80,000/-.
Besides the aforesaid, amounts are to be paid under
conventional heads, namely, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral
expenses.
In this regard, reference is made to decision rendered in
Harpreet Kaur and others vs. Mohinder Yadav and others, 2023(1) RCR
(Civil) 327, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while relying upon
Magma's case (supra), had concluded about the children and mother of the
deceased, all to be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards filial and parental
VINEET GULATI
2023.09.05 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:115336
consortium. Also, reference is made to Janabai and others vs. M/s I.C.I.C.I.
Lambord Insurance Company Ltd., 2022(4) RCR (Civil) 85 , wherein also,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held the claimants of that case, each to be
entitled to compensation, on the count of 'spousal consortium' for wife and
'parental consortium' for two children.
In consonance with the observations made in Pranay Sethi's
case (supra), after making addition of 10%, after three years from the date of
passing of the judgment, the amount payable, on the count of 'loss of
consortium' is to extent of Rs.44,000/- to each of the claimant
(Rs.44,000x3=Rs.1,32,000/-). Besides the same, the claimants are also
entitled to compensation for the 'loss of estate' as well as 'funeral expenses',
to the extent of Rs.16,500/-, on each count..
Considering the same, the compensation payable to claimants,
on account of death of Satinder Kumar alias Bittu, is re-appraised, as herein
given:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.16,80,000/-
Loss of consortium : Rs.1,32,000/-
Loss of estate : Rs.16,500/-
Funeral expenses : Rs.16,500/-
Total : Rs.18,45,000/-
In the light of aforesaid work upon, the compensation, so
awarded by learned Tribunal, is scaled down from Rs.19,97,200/- to
Rs.18,45,000/-.
The impugned Award dated 10.04.2014 stands modified, to the
extent, as indicated aforesaid and the remaining terms of liability, as well as
disbursal of the compensation amount, besides the interest component, shall
VINEET GULATI
2023.09.05 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:115336
remain the same.
With the above observations, the present appeal stands allowed.
September 02, 2023 (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
VINEET GULATI
2023.09.05 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
