Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anita Devi And Others vs Rohtash Kumar And Others on 20 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:053369
231-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO- 874-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision : 20.04.2024
Anita Devi & Ors. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Rohtash Kumar & Ors. ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Ashok Malhotra, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Pankaj Mohan Kansal, Advocate for respondent No.3
(through hybrid mode).
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, Panchkula vide award dated 13.10.2018.
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. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has not laid any
challenge to the addition of future prospects to the extent of 40%, deduction
of 1/4th as well as multiplier of '15'. The learned counsel for the claimant-
appellants has contended that the Tribunal has though assessed the income
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:053369
FAO- 874-2019 (O&M) -2-
of the deceased as Rs.318/- per day, however, has calculated the income
only for 23 days in a month (wrongly mentioned as 21 days) and hence
reached a conclusion that monthly income would be Rs.7,314/- by excluding
the income for seven non-working days. The learned counsel has further
contended that monthly income ought to be assessed for the entire month i.e.
Rs.9,540/- (Rs.318 x 30). It is further the contention of the learned counsel
that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the
head 'loss of consortium' are 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 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].
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company 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. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the
income of the deceased has rightly been assessed by excluding seven
non-working days in a month.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:053369
FAO- 874-2019 (O&M) -3-
6. In the present case, the Tribunal had awarded the following
compensation :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income Rs.7,314/- (318x23)
2 Future prospects - 40% [Rs.7,314 +2,925]=Rs.10,239/-
3 Deduction 1/4th [Rs.10,239 - 2,559]=Rs.7,680/-
4 Annual Income [Rs.7,680x12]=Rs.92,160/-
5 Multiplier - 15 [Rs.92,160x15]=Rs.13,82,400/-
6 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
7 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
8 Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-
9 Total Compensation Rs.14,52,400/-
Interest 7.5%
7. In the present case, minimum wage has been assessed as
Rs.318/- per day, however, the income of the deceased has been assessed as
Rs.7,314/- per month (Rs.318 x 23) by excluding the income for seven days
being some Sundays and non-working days. The said reasoning given by the
Tribunal is wholly erroneous. There is no basis for excluding Sundays and
non-working days and the said deduction has been made only on the basis of
guesswork, which is not sustainable in law. In view thereof, monthly income
of the deceased is assessed as Rs.9,540/- (Rs.318 x 30). In the present case,
since no challenge has been laid to the addition of future prospects to the
extent of 40%, deduction of 1/4th as well as multiplier of '15' as awarded by
the Tribunal, hence, the same are accordingly maintained. Further, the
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:053369
FAO- 874-2019 (O&M) -4-
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/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards
funeral expenses and the claimant-appellants i.e. wife and three children of
the deceased would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20%
increase) towards loss of consortium. The component of interest as awarded
by the Tribunal @ 7.5% per annum as well as apportionment of amount of
compensation amongst the claimants shall remain same. Accordingly, the
reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income Rs.9,540/-
2 Annual Income [Rs.9,540x12]=Rs.1,14,480/-
3 Deduction 1/4th [Rs.1,14,480-28,620]=Rs.85,860/-
4 Future Prospects - 40% [Rs.85,860+34,344]=Rs.1,20,204/-
5 Multiplier - 15 [Rs.1,20,204x15]=Rs.18,03,060/-
6 Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
8 Loss of consortium
(i) Parental [Rs.48,000/-x3]=Rs.1,44,000/-
(iii) Spousal Rs.48,000/-
(Total Rs.1,92,000/-)
Total Compensation Rs.20,31,060/-
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:053369
FAO- 874-2019 (O&M) -5-
8. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount
awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% 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.
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.
20.04.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
