Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hari Om Etc vs Mohd. Yusuf Teli & Others on 2 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098602
FAO No.3073 of 2010(O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
FAO No.3073 of 2010(O&M)
Date of Pronoucement: 02.08.2024
Hari Om and another .....Appellants
Versus
Mohd. Yusuf Teli and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: Mr. S.P. Khatri, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3-
Insurance Company.
****
RITU TAGORE, J.
1. Poonam, aged 16 years, a student of 10th standard, lost her life
in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 26.11.2008. The accident was
caused by respondent No.1/driver while driving the offending vehicle i.e. a
truck bearing registration No.JK-03A-5710, in a rash and negligent manner.
2. Grieving parents (claimants) filed the petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the respondents (driver, owner
and insurer of the offending vehicle), seeking compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of their child.
3. Respondents (driver, owner and insurer), on appearance before
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter to be referred as
'Tribunal'), filed their respective pleadings. After appraisal of the evidence,
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098602
learned Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,62,500/- as compensation along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its
realisation and held all the respondents jointly and severally liable for the
payment of determined amount of compensation, to the claimants.
4. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted in
the impugned award, the claimants have preferred the above captioned
appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that
assessment of income of the deceased on notional basis is even lower than
the minimum wages. The income should have been at least equal to
minimum wages prevalent during the relevant period, which were Rs.3,664/-
per month for an unskilled person. The deceased was a bright student of 10th
standard and used to tutor the children upto 08th standard and her
contributions to the family were not less than Rs.3,000/- per month.
Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants further states that learned
Tribunal should not have assessed the income of the deceased on notional
basis. However, in alternate, learned counsel for the claimants by referring
to the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in FAO No.2268 of
2016 titled "Mohan Lal and others Vs. Satyawan and others", decided on
02.06.2023, contends that in case of assessment of income of the deceased
on notional basis, same should be considered as not less than Rs.50,000/- per
annum.
6. Further, reduction of income for personal expenses of the
deceased by the learned Tribunal, has also been challenged, besides assailing
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098602
the grant of compensation under the conventional heads not being in terms
of decisions laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others'
(2018) 18 SCC 130 and 'National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Sethi and others' (2017) 16 SCC 680, by stating that just and
reasonable compensation ought to have been awarded along with interest as
permissible.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants, thus, prayed for
enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance
Company urged that although the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal
is just and proper, yet placing reliance on a judgment in 'Meena Devi Vs.
Nunu Chand Mahto and others', (2023) 1 SCC 204, contends that in a
similar case involving the death of a minor child aged 12 years, a student of
5th class, Hon'ble the Supreme Court assessed the notional income at
Rs.30,000/- per annum. He further argues that in the present case, there is
no evidence on record suggesting that the deceased was taking tuition and
was contributing Rs.3,000/- per month to the family. It is urged that the
facts of the case in Mohan Lal and others' case (supra) are not applicable
to the facts of the present case. However, learned counsel acknowledges
that compensation under the conventional heads is not in line with the
observations made in Magma General Insurance Company Limited's
case (supra) and Pranay Sethi and others' case (supra). However, prayed
for a reduction in the rate of interest granted by the learned Tribunal, stating
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098602
that it was on the higher side.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paper-book.
10. The death of Poonam, in the accident in question, caused by
respondent No.1/driver, while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner is not in dispute. Furthermore, age of the deceased being
16 years, 10th grade student, and the daughter of the claimants, is also not in
dispute. The liability of the Insurance Company is also not in issue in the
present case. However, the dispute is only with regard to quantum of
compensation.
11. The factual findings recorded by the Tribunal, based on
evidence that the deceased had no income from alleged tuition work, could
not be refuted by learned counsel for the claimants. Consequently, the
assessment of the minor daughter's contribution to the family on notional
basis for a 'non-earning individual' is justified.
12. It is well settled that compensation should be determined based
on factual matrix. However, the potential income of a child, irrespective of
age, cannot be precisely determined. Nonetheless, untimely loss of a human
life in adolescence can never be adequately measured solely in terms of loss
of earnings or monetary loss. In 'Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and
others ', 2014(1) SCC 244, a child of 10 years had died in a road side
accident in the year 1992. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while deciding the
case in 2013, enhanced the notional income from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/-
by observing that value of rupee has declined drastically since 1992.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098602
Moreover, had this unfortunate accident not consumed the life of the minor
child, she would have been a source of help and happiness to his parents-
appellants. Determination of compensation should not depend upon the
financial position of the victim or the claimant rather on the capacity and
ability of the deceased to provide happiness in life of the claimants if the
child remained alive. The compensation is granted to compensate for loss of
prospective happiness which the claimants would have enjoyed had the child
not died at such a young age. It is further pertinent to note that the value of
rupee has significantly diminished due to substantial increase in the price of
essential commodities. Now in the year 2024, there has been all the more
depreciation in value of the rupee. In view of the above deliberations, I am
inclined to take the income of the deceased adolescent child on notional
basis at Rs.50,000/- per annum.
13. However, no case for addition of future prospects on
determination of notional income is made out, as the element of increase in
future income is inherently accounted for, when considering the notional
income of a 'non-earning person'. Similarly, no case is made out for
deducting any amount from personal expenses of a 'non-earning person'
whose income is assessed on notional basis.
14. However, the grant of compensation on account of loss of filial
consortium, loss of estate and funeral charges as granted by the Tribunal is
not as per the legal proposition of law expounded by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court of India in Pranay Sethi and others' case (supra). Accordingly, it is
required to be re-determined.
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098602
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the award passed by the
Tribunal is modified and claimants/appellants are held entitled to the amount
of compensation as re-determined hereinbelow:-
Sr. No. Heads Amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs.7,50,000/-
(50,000/- x 15 multiplier)
2. Loss of consortium (filial) Rs.96,000/-
(48,000/- x 2)
3. Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
5. Total Compensation Rs.8,82,000/-
6. Amount awarded by the Rs.1,62,500/-
Tribunal
7. Enhanced amount of Rs.7,19,500/-
compensation
16. The respondent No.3-Insurance company, is hereby directed to
pay the claimants-appellants an enhanced amount of compensation i.e.
Rs.7,19,500/- (Rupees seven lakh nineteen thousand five hundred only)
awarded hereinabove, over and above, the amount awarded by the Tribunal,
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till its realization, and amount assessed above be deposited within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment, with the Tribunal. The remaining conditions of disbursal of the
amount as given by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. Needless to mention
that the amount, if any, already deposited by the insurance company shall be
adjusted.
17. No other point was addressed or raised.
18. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to
costs.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098602
19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are disposed of
accordingly.
AUGUST 02, 2024 (RITU TAGORE)
d.gulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
