Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bimla Bist And Ors vs Jogindeer Singh And Ors on 24 April, 2024
Author: Archana Puri
Bench: Archana Puri
2024:PHHC:056008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(i) FAO-3032-2002 (O&M)
Bimla Bist and others
...Appellants
VERSUS
Jogender Singh and others
...Respondents
(ii) FAO-3033-2002 (O&M)
Asha Rani and others
...Appellants
VERSUS
Jogender Singh and others
...Respondents
Date of Decision: April 24, 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present: Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal and Mr.Ishan Aggarwal, Advocates
for the appellants.
Mr.Suman Jain, Advocate
for respondent No.3-insurance company.
****
ARCHANA PURI, J.
These are two appeals, filed at the instance of the appellants-
claimants, thereby seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on account of deaths of Jiwan
Singh and Lajpat Rai, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on
21.11.1997.
Three claim petitions, filed to seek compensation on account of
injuries sustained by Sonali alias Ginni and on account of deaths of Jiwan
2024:PHHC:056008
FAO-3032-2002 and connected case -2-
Singh and Lajpat Rai, were consolidated and disposed of vide Award dated
05.01.2002.
On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned
Tribunal, vis-a-vis, death of Lajpat Rai had granted compensation to the
extent of Rs.16,86,504/-. Qua the death of Jiwan Singh, learned Tribunal had
granted compensation to the extent of Rs.4,27,400/-.
Feeling aggrieved by the extent of compensation, so awarded,
present appeals have been filed by the respective appellants-claimants.
FAO-3032-2002 has been filed qua compensation granted, on
account of death of Jiwan Singh.
FAO-3033-2002 has been filed qua compensation granted, on
account of death of Lajpat Rai.
So far as, the factum of accident, manner of its taking place and
the liability fastened upon the respondents, is concerned, it is pertinent to
mention that none of the respondents, have challenged the findings, so
recorded and therefore, this aspect, calls for no further judicial scrutiny.
It is only the insurance company, who had made appearance through
counsel.
In this backdrop, firstly, let us consider the case of death of
Lajpat Rai, in the accident in question.
It is the categoric claim of the appellants-claimants that
deceased Lajpat Rai was 46 years old and was working on the post of
Conservator of Forests, Society Forestry Project, Ambala, Haryana
Government and was drawing salary of more than Rs.20,000/- per month.
Besides the widow of deceased, namely Asha Rani, stepping into witness
2024:PHHC:056008
FAO-3032-2002 and connected case -3-
box as PW-2, the claimants have examined PW-3 Sham Murari, Assistant in
the office of Conservator of Forest, who, on the basis of the record brought
by him, deposed about posting of the deceased as Conservator of Forests at
Ambala and about him to be drawing salary of Rs.20,108/- per month, at the
time of his death. This witness proved the pay statements, which are Ex.P3
and P4. Furthermore, he also proved the list of promotees of the department
and that the person namely B.D.Monga, who was at par with the deceased,
has since been promoted as Chief Conservator of Forest in February 1999,
vide order Ex.P6.
While taking the earnings of deceased as Rs.20,108/- and further
making deduction of 1/3rd, on account of personal expenses, the dependency
was worked upon as Rs.12,738.66 per month, annual whereof was worked
upon as Rs.1,52,864/-. To the said amount, multiplier of '11' was applied
and the compensation was worked upon as Rs.16,81,504/-, to which addition
of Rs.5,000/- was made, on account of 'funeral expenses and transportation
charges' and thus, the total compensation was worked upon as
Rs.16,86,504/-. However, the compensation, so worked upon by learned
Tribunal, as per prevalent law, do call for re-determination.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that Jugal Kishore, father of
the deceased had died during the pendency of the claim petition and the
compensation was granted to the widow and children of deceased Lajpat Rai
only.
From the seniority list Ex.P5 proved by PW-3 Sham Murari, it
is evident that the date of birth of the deceased was 03.05.1951. As such, at
the time of death, having taken place on 21.11.1997, deceased Lajpat Rai
2024:PHHC:056008
FAO-3032-2002 and connected case -4-
was 46½ years old. Even, the deceased holding the post of Conservator of
Forest and his earnings to be Rs.20,108/- per month, stands amply
established from the salary record proved by PW-3 Sham Murari. Perusal of
the salary slip reveals about the salary of the deceased to be Rs.20,108/-,
which is now rounded off to Rs.20,100/-, annual whereof, comes to be
Rs.2,41,200/-.
As per prevalent income tax, at the relevant time, there was no
tax payable upto the income of Rs.40,000/-. Thereafter, for the income
bracket of Rs.40000/- to Rs.60,000/-, the tax payable was to the extent of
10% i.e. Rs.2000/-. From the income bracket of Rs.60000/- to Rs.15,000/-,
the tax was 20% i.e. Rs.18,000/- and for the income from Rs.1,50,000/-
onwards, the tax payable was @ 30% and therefore, in the case of the
deceased, it comes to Rs.27,360/- (Rs.241200-150000=Rs.91200x30%).
Thus, the total tax payable comes to be Rs.47360/- and the residue annual
income comes to be Rs.1,93,840/-.
Keeping in view the age of the deceased, as per Pranay Sethi's
case, addition of 30%, on the count of 'future prospects' ought to be made.
Thus, the annual income of the deceased is worked upon as
Rs.193840+Rs.58152(30%)=Rs.2,51,992/-.
Learned Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd from the income, but
however, looking at the number of dependents, as per Sarla Verma's case,
the deduction ought to be made to the extent of 1/4th and after deducting the
same, the annual dependency is worked upon as Rs.251992-
62998(1/4th)=Rs.1,88,994/-.
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009
VINEET GULATI Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77
2024:PHHC:056008
FAO-3032-2002 and connected case -5-
Learned Tribunal had erroneously applied the multiplier of '11',
but however, considering the age of the deceased, as per Sarla Verma's
case, appropriate and suitable multiplier, to be applied is '13' and while
applying the same, the loss of dependency, works out to be Rs.188994x13=
Rs.24,56,922/-.
Besides the aforesaid, the compensation awarded by learned
Tribunal, under the conventional heads, definitely calls for intervention.
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.
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.
Considering the same, the compensation payable to appellants-
claimants on account of death of Lajpat Rai, is computed, as herein given:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.24,56,922/-
Loss of consortium : Rs.2,42,000/-
Loss of estate : Rs.18,150/-
Funeral expenses : Rs.18,150/-
Total : Rs.27,35,222/-
As such, the enhanced compensation, after the deduction of
2024:PHHC:056008
FAO-3032-2002 and connected case -6-
compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to be Rs.27,35,222-
16,86,504=Rs.10,48,718/-.
Now, let us consider the case of death of Jiwan Singh. It is
categoric claim of the appellants-claimants that deceased Jiwan Singh was
employed as Peon in Forest Department, at the relevant time and he was
earning Rs.3293/- per month. PW-3 Sham Murari has deposed about date of
birth of Jiwan Singh to be 05.07.1973 and that he was employed as Peon in
the Forest Department and earning Rs.3293/- per month, as salary. He
proved the pay statement Ex.P7 and fixation of pay Ex.P8.
Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that deceased Jiwan Singh
was 24 years old, at the time of his death, in the accident in question and was
drawing salary to the extent of Rs.3293/-, annual whereof comes to be
Rs.39,516/-, which was within the exempted limit of income tax, at the
relevant time.
To this amount, keeping in view the age of the deceased, an addition
of 50% ought to be made, on the count of 'future prospects. Thus, the
income is worked upon as Rs.3293+Rs.1646(50%)=Rs.4,939/-.
Learned Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd from the income, but
however, looking at the number of dependents, as per Sarla Verma's case,
the deduction ought to be made to the extent of 1/4th and after deducting the
same, the dependency is worked upon as Rs.4939-1234=Rs.3705/-, annual
whereof, comes to be Rs.44,460/-.
Learned Tribunal had erroneously applied the multiplier of '16',
but however, considering the age of the deceased, as per Sarla Verma's
case, appropriate and suitable multiplier, to be applied is '18' and while
2024:PHHC:056008
FAO-3032-2002 and connected case -7-
applying the same, the loss of dependency, works out to be Rs.44460x18=
Rs.8,00,280/-.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that learned Tribunal
had granted the compensation, while taking into consideration the fact of
father of the deceased to be alive and dependent upon him. However,
learned counsel for the insurance company submits that Gopal Singh Bist,
father of deceased Jiwan Singh, was not dependent upon the deceased. As
such, the conclusion drawn is erroneous.
The word 'dependent' has a different meaning in different
connotation. Some may be dependent in terms of money and other may be
dependent in terms of service. It does not mean financial dependency only.
Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency,
emotional dependency, psychological dependency, and so on and so forth,
which can never be equated in terms of money. Reverting to the case in
hand, it is pertinent to mention that deceased was 24 years old, at the time of
accident. Even, assuming that appellant-claimant No.5, being father of the
deceased, may not be dependent financially, upon the deceased, but
however, at this age, father is definitely emotionally and psychologically
dependent upon his young child and also he has service dependency. In the
given circumstances, appellant-claimant No.5, ought not to be deprived of
the compensation, to be so worked upon. As such, the finding, got recorded
by learned Tribunal, thereby holding father of the deceased to be dependent
upon the deceased is hereby affirmed.
Besides the aforesaid, as already observed in the earlier portion
of the judgment, the appellants-claimants are entitled to compensation under
2024:PHHC:056008
FAO-3032-2002 and connected case -8-
the conventional heads namely 'loss of consortium', 'loss of estate' and
'funeral expenses', to the extent of Rs.48,400/-, Rs.18,150/- and
Rs.18,150/-, respectively.
Considering the same, the compensation payable to appellants-
claimants on account of death of Jiwan Singh, is computed, as herein given:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.8,00,280 /-
Loss of consortium : Rs.2,42,000/-
Loss of estate : Rs.18,150/-
Funeral expenses : Rs.18,150/-
Total : Rs.10,78,580/-
As such, the enhanced compensation, after the deduction of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to be Rs.10,78,580-
4,27,400=Rs.6,51,180/-.
The compensation awarded by learned Tribunal shall be
disbursed to the appellants-claimants of both the cases, as per terms of the
Award, if not paid.
Out of the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.10,48,718/-,
as now awarded qua death of Lajpat Rai, appellants-claimants No.2 to 5 are
held entitled to Rs.1 lakh each, whereas, appellant-claimant No.1 is held
entitled to residue amount Rs.6,48,718/-. Similarly, in the case of death of
Jiwan Singh, out of the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.6,51,180/-,
appellants-claimants No.2 to 5 are held entitled to Rs.75,000/- each,
whereas, appellant No.1 is held entitled to residue amount of Rs.3,51,180/-.
However, on the enhanced amount of the compensation, in both
the appeals, the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to the interest, at the
rate of 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the present appeal, till
2024:PHHC:056008
FAO-3032-2002 and connected case -9-
realization of the enhanced amount of compensation. The residue terms of
the Award, shall remain the same.
With the above observations, both the appeals stand allowed.
April 24, 2024 (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
