Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Bala & Ors vs Subhash Chander & Ors on 9 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048173
FAO-1251-1991 -1-
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:048173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
138
FAO-1251-1991
Date of Decision:09.04.2024
Rajbala and others
.... Appellants
Vs
Subhash Chander and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr.Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the appellants.
None for respondents No. 1 and 2.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of instant appeal filed under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, legal heirs of deceased Ramesh have approached this
Court, claiming enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), Bhiwani, vide
award dated 11.09.1991.
2. Brief facts may be noticed. Ramesh, aged 27 years, who
was going on a cycle was hit by a truck bearing No. HYW-7726 on
01.08.1990 and he succumbed to injuries. His widow, three minor
children and parents filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.4 Lacs, which was
accepted and the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- along
with costs and interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the
petition. Award was passed against all the respondents and was
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048173
FAO-1251-1991 -2-
ordered to be satisfied by the Insurance Company.
3. As there is no representation on behalf of the Insurance
Company-respondent No.3, on the asking of the Court, Mr. Suvir
Dewan, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent
No.3 and has assisted the Court.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and examined the record
with their able assistance.
5. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, Tribunal has
returned a finding that the accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of the truck driver, Subhash Chander, respondent
No.1, who is facing trial in a criminal case. In their evidence before
the Tribunal, the claimants produced ocular evidence to the effect that
the deceased was cultivating land as well as running a shop and
earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Documentary evidence was produced
to show that he had a licence from Municipal Committee, Bhiwani
Khera and some bills were produced to establish payments of octroi.
The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was a petty
shopkeeper and was earning Rs.1,000/- per month. The version of the
claimants that the deceased was cultivating land, was not accepted.
After deducting Rs.250/- per month from the monthly income of the
deceased for his own expenses, the Tribunal determined the monthly
dependency at Rs.750/- per month i.e. Rs.9000/- per annum. Applying
the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the total
dependency works out to Rs.1,44,000/- Awarding Rs.600/- on account
of funeral expenses, the Tribunal passed the award as noticed above.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048173
FAO-1251-1991 -3-
6. In Kirti and another Versus Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166, Supreme Court has held that as the family
of the deceased consisted of four dependents, appropriate deduction
for personal expenses ought to be 1/4th. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that no error can be found with the dependency determined by
the Tribunal. However, insofar as the multiplier is concerned, the
same deserves to be increased and the appropriate multiplier to be
applied is 17 as the deceased was 27 years of age. The claimants are
also entitled to 40% increase for future prospects as has been held by
the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus
Pranay Sethi, 2017(16) SCC 680. Insofar as the conventional heads
are concerned, the claimants are granted Rs.48,000/- per head
following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors.,
2018(18) SCC 130.
7. Without interfering with the rate of interest awarded by the
Tribunal, compensation is ordered to be enhanced as indicated in
preceding paragraph and the award of the Tribunal is modified
accordingly.
8. Appeal is disposed of.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
09.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
pooja saini JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
