Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhinder Kaur Etc vs Guru Prasad Mahatme Etc on 16 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
FAO No.4210 of 2010 -1- 2024:PHHC:051282
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
234 FAO No.4210 of 2010
Date of Decision : 16.04.2024
Bhinder Kaur and Others ....Appellants
VERSUS
Guru Prasad Mahatme and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for
Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate for
Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-
appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar Mohali (hereinafter referred to as the
Tribunal) vide award dated 04.01.2010.
2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by
the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for
the sake of brevity.
3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following
compensation :
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly income Rs.3,000/-
2 Annual income [Rs.3,000 x 12] = Rs.36,000/-
3 Deduction 1/4th [Rs.36,000 - 9,000] = Rs.27,000/-
integrity of this order/judgment
FAO No.4210 of 2010 -2- 2024:PHHC:051282
4 Multiplier of 16 [Rs.27,000 x 16] = Rs.4,32,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.4,32,000/-
Interest 8% per annum
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that
the deceased was running a dairy business and was earning Rs.15,000/- per
month and also owned 02 trucks. Registration certificates of both the trucks
were produced on the record as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, however, the same have
not been considered while assessing the income of the deceased and the
income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month on the basis of
minimum wages. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would further
contend that even though the trucks and the dairy business may have been
inherited by the legal heirs, however, a Manager would have to be employed
now to look after the business after the death of the deceased - Hari Singh.
It is further the contention that no addition has been made by the Tribunal
towards loss of future prospects and no amount has been awarded under the
conventional heads as well as under the head of 'loss of consortium'. In
support of her contentions the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants
has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16
SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram
alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors.
vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4)
RCR (Civil) 642]. No challenge has been laid by learned counsel for the
claimant-appellants to deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased
and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal.
integrity of this order/judgment
FAO No.4210 of 2010 -3- 2024:PHHC:051282
5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company has contended that the income of the deceased has correctly been
assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month in the absence of any evidence and that
there is no scope of any further enhancement.
6. Heard.
7. In the present case the Tribunal has assessed the monthly
income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. Registration certificates of 02 trucks
(Ex.P2 and Ex.P3) were proved on the record, however, there is no evidence
qua the dairy business and hence it can safely be assumed that the deceased
was running a business of trucks. After the death of the deceased his family
would have had to engage a manager to look after the business. The
deceased would have been managing the business and hence his income
ought to have been assessed as that of a skilled worker which, at the relevant
point of time, was Rs.3,929/- per month. Hence, the income of the deceased
is assessed as Rs.3,929/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly applied a
deduction of 1/4th as also the multiplier, however, no addition has been made
towards loss of future prospects. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, an
addition of 40% is made towards loss of future prospects. Further, no
amount has been awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the
head 'loss of consortium' and hence as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General
Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), the
claimant-appellants would be entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20%
increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase)
towards funeral expenses and the claimant-appellants, who are wife, children
and parents of the deceased, would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- each
integrity of this order/judgment
FAO No.4210 of 2010 -4- 2024:PHHC:051282
(Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of spousal, parental and filial
consortium.
8. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly income Rs.3,929/-
2 Annual income [Rs.3,929 x 12] = Rs.47,148/-
3 Deduction 1/4th [Rs.47,148 - 11,787] = Rs.35,361/-
4 Future prospects @ 40% [Rs.35,361 + 14,145] = Rs.49,506/-
5 Multiplier 16 [Rs.49,506 x 16] = Rs.7,92,096/-
6 Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
8 Loss of Consortium :
(i) Parental Rs.96,000/- (48,000 x 2)
(ii) Filial Rs.96,000/- (48,000 x 2)
(iii) Spousal Rs.48,000/-
(Total Rs.2,40,000/-)
Total Compensation Rs.10,68,096/-
9. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount
awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 8 % per annum from
the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.
The amount shall be apportioned between the claimant-appellants as directed
by the Tribunal.
10. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed
and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
16.04.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment
