Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mamta Sharma And Ors vs Jeewan Kumar And Ors on 18 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:052214
424
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-2672-2008 (O&M)
Date of decision : 18.04.2024
Mamta Sharma & Ors. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Jeewan Kumar & Ors. ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Lalit Garg, 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, Bathinda vide award dated 07.09.2007.
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. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income Rs.3,000/-
2 Annual Income [Rs.3,000x12]=Rs.36,000/-
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:052214
FAO-2672-2008 (O&M) -2-
3 Deduction 1/3rd [Rs.36,000-12,000]=Rs.24,000/-
4 Multiplier - 13 [Rs.24,000x13]=Rs.3,12,000/-
5 Funeral expenses Rs.2,000/-
6 Loss of consortium Rs.5,000/-
7 Total Compensation Rs.3,19,000/-
Interest 9%
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that
though the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as
Rs.3,000/- per month, however, deduction of 1/3rd has wrongly been applied,
whereas it ought to have been 1/4th as there were five dependents and further
that multiplier of '13' has wrongly been applied, whereas it ought to have
been '15' keeping in view the age of the deceased being 40 years at the time
of the accident. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that no
addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to have been
25% and that the amount awarded under the conventional heads as well as
under the head 'loss of consortium' is also not in accordance with the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In support of his contentions he
has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6
SCC 121], 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]. Learned counsel for the claimant-
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:052214
FAO-2672-2008 (O&M) -3-
appellants has pointed out that the parents of the deceased i.e. appellant
Nos.4 and 5 have since expired.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has
vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as
compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any
enhancement.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. In the present case, though the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, however, multiplier of '13'
has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal and hence, as per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra),
multiplier of '15' would be applicable keeping in view the age of the
deceased being 40 years at the time of the accident. Deduction of 1/3rd has
wrongly been applied which ought to have been 1/4th keeping in view the
fact that there were five dependents. Further, no addition has been made
towards future prospects and hence as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 25% addition is made
towards future prospects. The amounts awarded under the conventional
heads and under the head 'loss of consortium' are not 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) and hence, the claimant-appellants would be entitled to Rs.18,000/-
(Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/-
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:052214
FAO-2672-2008 (O&M) -4-
(Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimant-
appellants i.e. wife and two children of the deceased would also be entitled
to Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium.
In the present case, since the parents of the deceased have since expired,
hence no amount can be awarded towards filial consortium. Accordingly, the
reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income Rs.3,000/-
2 Annual Income [Rs.3,000x12]=Rs.36,000/-
3 Deduction 1/4th [Rs.36,000-9,000]=Rs.27,000/-
4 Future Prospects - 25% [Rs.27,000+6,750]=Rs.33,750/-
5 Multiplier - 15 [Rs.33,750x15]=Rs.5,06,250/-
6 Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
8 Loss of consortium
(i) Parental [Rs.48,000/-x2]=Rs.96,000/-
(ii) Spousal Rs.48,000/-
(Total Rs.1,44,000/-)
9 Funeral expenses Rs.6,86,250/-
8. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount
awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 9 % 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 (wife and
children of the deceased) equally.
9. 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.
18.04.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
