Punjab-Haryana High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Avtar Singh & Ors on 22 April, 2024
Author: Archana Puri
Bench: Archana Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055266
2024:PHHC:055266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(i) FAO-2595-2017 (O&M)
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
...Appellant
VERSUS
Avtar Singh and others
...Respondents
(ii) Cross Objection-140-2019 (O&M)
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
...Appellant
VERSUS
Avtar Singh and others
...Respondents
Date of Decision: April 22, 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present: Mr.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Surender Kumar, Advocate for
Mr.N.S.Dadwal, Advocate
for respondent No.1(a).
Ms.Palak Jain, Advocate for
Mr.Gopal Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 5/cross objectors.
****
ARCHANA PURI, J.
FAO-2595-2017 has been filed by the insurance company,
thereby, questioning the extent of compensation awarded to the claimants by
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055266
2024:PHHC:055266
FAO-2595-2017 and connected case -2-
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on account of death of Jaswinder
Singh, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 23.12.2011.
XOBC-140-2019 have been filed by the claimants for seeking
enhancement of the compensation.
For the convenience of discussion, the parties are referred to as
making appearance before learned Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the parties heard.
So far as, the fact and manner of taking place of the accident
and liability fastened upon the respondents is concerned, none of the
respondents has assailed the same, including the insurance company.
Rather, the insurance company, has confined its prayer only qua quantum of
compensation. Therefore, aforesaid aspects, calls for no further judicial
scrutiny.
Be it noted that the accident had taken place on 23.12.2011, on
account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1-Karamjit Singh,
driver of PEPSU bus bearing registration No.PB-11AT-9995. In the claim
petition, deceased Jaswinder Singh was asserted to be 42 years old and at the
time of accident, he was working as a Transporter-cum-Driver and was
earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
While considering earnings of the deceased to be Rs.20,000/- per
month, learned Tribunal had worked upon the annual earnings to be
Rs.2,40,000/-. Considering the number of dependents, 1/4th was deducted
from his income, on account of 'personal and living expenses' and
contribution towards the family was thus taken to be Rs.1,80,000/-. On the
said amount, an addition of 30% was made, on the count of 'future
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055266
2024:PHHC:055266
FAO-2595-2017 and connected case -3-
prospects', which comes to be Rs.54,000/- and thus, total income was
worked upon as Rs.2,34,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased,
multiplier of '14' was applied and the compensation was worked upon as
Rs.32,76,000/-. Besides the same, Rs.25,000/- each was granted on the
counts of 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate' and another sum of
Rs.50,000/- was given towards 'loss of consortium'. In total, the
compensation was worked upon as Rs.33,51,000/- and was ordered to be
payable to claimants No.2 to 6, in equal shares.
In the light of the aforesaid, it is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellant-insurance company that the compensation, so worked upon
by learned Tribunal, is on higher side, which calls for reduction. He submits
that deceased Jaswinder Singh was driver upon the truck, which was owned
by his father Avtar Singh. In the given circumstances, he could not be
considered to be a transporter, but however, ought to be considered as highly
skilled driver and therefore, his earnings ought to be as per the minimum
wages, payable to the highly skilled driver. At the relevant time, he submits
that as per the notification issued by the government, the earnings of a
highly skilled labour was Rs.7909/- per month and therefore, at the
maximum, it could be taken as Rs.8000/- per month and thereupon, the
compensation should be worked upon. Even, it is submitted that the
compensation under the conventional heads also calls for reduction. As
such, a prayer has been made for acceptance of appeal by learned counsel
for the insurance company and consequential reduction to be made, in the
quantum of compensation, already awarded.
On the other hand, learned counsel for cross-objectors/claimants
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055266
2024:PHHC:055266
FAO-2595-2017 and connected case -4-
resisted the aforesaid submission. Rather, he submits that since the truck
was owned by father of the deceased, therefore, in any case, the deceased
could not be considered as driver only. As such, he was a transporter and
taking him to be so, the earnings considered by learned Tribunal, are on
lower side, which calls for enhancement.
As per prevalent law, the compensation, worked upon by
learned Tribunal, as detailed aforesaid, do call for re-determination.
From the evidence adduced, it stands amply established that
truck bearing No.PB-10BK-9692 was the ownership by Avtar Singh, father
of deceased Jaswinder Singh. Soon before the accident, Jaswinder Singh
was driving the aforesaid truck. Since, the truck was owned by father and
the deceased was a highly skilled driver, therefore, if he was driving the
truck, at the relevant time, it, ipso facto, cannot be said that he was working
as driver. If the family is having a truck and son of the family, drives the
same, his earnings cannot be considered, as that of a minimum level, as per
the notification issued by the government. In fact, he has an edge over the
person, who is employed as a driver.
But, at the same time, though monthly earnings have been taken as
Rs.20,000/-, but no substantive evidence, is coming on record, with regard to
this extent of earnings of the deceased. In the given circumstances, keeping
in view the truck owned by the family of the deceased and the deceased
himself driving the said truck and also keeping in view the minimum wages
for highly skilled driver, at the relevant time, in the minimum, while doing
some moderation, in modest estimate, the earnings of the deceased, can
appropriately be taken as Rs.12,000/- per month.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055266
2024:PHHC:055266
FAO-2595-2017 and connected case -5-
While taking the earnings as Rs.12,000/- per month, there has to
be addition on the count of 'future prospects'. Even though, learned
Tribunal had taken it as 30%, considering the age of the deceased, but
however, as per Pranay Sethi's case, the addition, has to be to the extent of
Rs.25%, which comes to be Rs.3000/-. Thus, the earnings of the deceased
are taken as Rs.15,000/- per month (Rs.12000+Rs.3000).
Considering the number of dependents of the deceased, as per
Sarla Verma's case, the deduction, on the count of 'personal expenses' has
been appropriately taken as 1/4th and taking it to be so, the monthly
dependency is worked upon as Rs.15000-3750(1/4th)=Rs.11,250/- and the
annual whereof, comes to be Rs.1,35,000/-.
Considering the age of the deceased, as per Sarla Verma's
case, appropriate and suitable multiplier, to be applied is '14', as applied by
learned Tribunal and while applying the same, the loss of dependency,
works out to be Rs.135000x14=Rs.18,90,000/-.
Besides the same, the compensation granted under the
conventional heads also calls for interference. As per Pranay Sethi's case
(supra), the compensation, ought to be paid to the claimants, on the count of
'loss of consortium', 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses', which was
stated to be to the extent of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/-
respectively. However, with the enhancement clause of 10%, after every
three years of the passing of the judgment, the compensation, on the
aforesaid counts, works out to be, Rs.48,400/-, Rs.18,150/- and Rs.18,150/-,
respectively.
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009
Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055266
2024:PHHC:055266
FAO-2595-2017 and connected case -6-
Besides the aforesaid, Rs.25,000/- has been granted towards of
consortium. However, it is pertinent to mention that as per 'Magma
General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram
and others, 2018 (18) SCC 130', all the dependents of the
deceased/claimants, are entitled to 'parental', 'spousal' or 'filial'
consortium, as required.
One of the claimant, namely Avtar Singh, who is father of
deceased Jaswinder Singh had died, during the pendency of the claim
petition and therefore, the compensation was awarded to claimants No.2 to 6
only.
Considering the same, the compensation payable to
dependents/claimants, on account of death of Jaswinder Singh, is re-
computated, as herein given:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.18,90,000/-
Loss of consortium : Rs.2,42,000/-
Loss of estate : Rs.18,150/-
Funeral expenses : Rs.18,150/-
Total : Rs.21,68,300/-
As such, the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal stands
reduced from the extent of Rs.33,51,000/- to Rs.21,68,300/-. The
compensation, as awarded by learned Tribunal was ordered to be payable in
equal shares to all the claimants. Considering the same, the compensation, as
now awarded be now granted to the claimants, including LRs of deceased
Joginder Kaur, in equal shares. However, if the amount, as awarded by
learned Tribunal had been paid to any of the claimants, the same shall be
recovered proportionate to their reduced share. The remaining terms of the
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055266
2024:PHHC:055266
FAO-2595-2017 and connected case -7-
Award shall remain the same.
In view of the aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the
insurance company i.e. FAO-2595-2022 stands allowed, whereas, XOBC-
140-2019 filed by the claimants, stands dismissed.
April 22, 2024 (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
