Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajpreet Kaur And Ors vs Sukhchain Singh And Anr on 5 August, 2024
FAO-6224-2018
2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-6224-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.08.2024
Rajpreet Kaur and Ors ... Appellants
Versus
Sukhchain Singh and Anr. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present:- Mr.Ashwani
Ashwani Arora,
Arora Advocate for the appellant
appellants.
Mr.Neeraj
Neeraj Khanna,
Khanna Advocate
for respondent No. 2-United
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
1. The present appeal lays challenge to an award dated
11.07.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tarn
Tar
Taran (in brevity, "the Tribunal"), whereby compensation of Rs.
Rs.13,55,200
13,55,200/-
was awarded to the appellants/claimants
appellant along with interest @ 7.5%
% per
annum.
2. The appellants/
appellant claimants being dependents of deceased, filed
claim petition before the Tribunal praying for grant of compensation to the
tune of Rs.75,00,000/
,00,000/- along with interest of 12% on account of death of
Ranjit Singh in a vehicular accident which took place on 26.05.2017
alleging
ng rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1
No.1-driver.
3. Learned Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent No. 1/ driver and after assessing income of
the deceased
sed as that of labourer, at Rs.
Rs.6,000/- per month, awarded
compensation in the following manner-
manner
FAO-6224-2018 (O&M) -2-
S.No Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs)
1. Loss of dependency Rs.12,85,200/-
2. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
3. Loss of Consortium (widow) Rs.40,000/-
4. Funeral and last rites Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.13,55,200/-
4. Being aggrieved against the award dated 11.07.2018, the
present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants for
enhancement of compensation. Facts as specified in the claim petition and
the issue regarding negligence of the driver been upheld in favour of
appellants/claimants by the Tribunal are not in dispute, therefore, for the
sake of brevity, those are not being repeated here.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants assailed the
award while submitting that income of the deceased, was Rs. 30,000/- per
month as he was working as a carpenter and the same was never rebutted
by the respondents by leading any evidence and therefore, Ld. Tribunal
wrongly assessed the same as Rs.6,000/- only and thus it was liable to be
enhanced. He further contended that even the loss of consortium has also
not been granted to the family of the deceased as per the verdict in the
case of "United India Insurance Co. V. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur
& others", (2021) 11 SCC 780. He concluded his arguments by submitting
that the compensation granted against other heads was also on the lower
side.
FAO-6224-2018 (O&M) -3-
6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the
respondent-insurance company submitted that there was no basis to
assess the income of the deceased as Rs. 30,000/- per month as no
evidence except the bare testimonies of CW-1 namely Rajpreet Kaur (wife)
and CW-3 namely Swaran Singh (father) was brought before the tribunal
and therefore, the Tribunal rightly assessed his income as Rs. 6000/- per
month. He further contended that appellants-claimants were adequately
compensated and thus the present appeal was liable to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
paper-book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the appellants/claimants.
8. In the present case, it was argued that the deceased was
working as a carpenter in view of the statement of CW-1 and CW-3,
although no documentary evidence to support the same was placed before
the learned Tribunal in this regard. Ld. Tribunal assessed the monthly
income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month considering him as an
unskilled labour without giving any reasoning in support. Even if the criteria
of notional income on the basis of schedule prepared by the State Legal
Services Authority or as per Workmen's Compensation Act was to be
followed then also the minimum wages for an unskilled labour come out to
be Rs. 7,568/- per month for the year 2017, in the State of Punjab. This
court is of the view that though the deceased was working in an un-
organized sector yet earning his livelihood as an expert, minimum wages
could not be taken as an absolute criterion to assess his income even
though no documentary evidence in this regards was available. It was held
by Hon'ble Apex Court in "Zakir Hussein vs Sabir and others" reported
FAO-6224-2018 (O&M) -4-
as 2015(2) RCR(Civil) 141 that notification of minimum wages is only a
yardstick for assessing the income of the person but it is not an absolute
factor to be taken into consideration, as at times it fails to meet the
requirements that are needed to maintain the basic quality of life. Relevant
para from this judgement is reproduced hereunder:
"14. We have carefully examined the facts of the case and material
evidence on record in the light of the rival legal contentions urged
before us by both the learned counsel on behalf of the parties to find
out as to whether the appellant is entitled for further enhancement of
compensation? We have perused the impugned judgment and order
of the High Court and the award of the Tribunal. After careful
examination of the facts and legal evidence on record, it is not in
dispute that the appellant was working as a driver at the time of the
accident and no doubt, he could be earning L 4,500/- per month. As
per the notification issued by the State Government of Madhya
Pradesh under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a person
employed as a driver earns L 128/- per day, however the wage rate
as per the minimum wage notification is only a yardstick and not an
absolute factor to be taken to determine the compensation under the
future loss of income. Minimum wage, as per State Government
Notification alone may at times fail to meet the requirements that are
needed to maintain the basic quality of life since it is not inclusive of
factors of cost of living index. Therefore, we are of the view that it
would be just and reasonable to consider the appellant's daily wage
at L 150/- per day ( L 4,500/- per month i.e. L 54,000/- per annum)
as he was a driver of the motor vehicle which is a skilled job.
Further, the Tribunal has wrongly determined the loss of income
during the course of his treatment at L 51,000/- for a period of one
year and five months. We have to enhance the same to L 76,500/- (
L 4,500 X 17 months)."
9. In "Kubrabibi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.", reported as
2023(3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 23, Hon'ble Apex Court held that in
the absence of definite proof of income, the social status of the deceased is
to be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in unorganized
sector. Relevant para from this judgement is reproduced here under:
"7. In a matter of the present nature where the compensation is
sought and even in the absence of definite proof of the income, the
social status of the deceased is to be kept in perspective where such
FAO-6224-2018 (O&M) -5-
persons are employed in unorganized sector and the notional
income in any event is required to be taken into consideration. The
fact that the deceased had three dependents to be cared for and
had claimed that he was working as a mechanic, the amount
payable to an unskilled labour, cannot be the basis and in that
circumstance when he was a skilled person, the daily income at
Rs.200/- per day in any event could have been taken even if the
income from jeep transport business was discarded for want of
documents. More so in a circumstance, where the MACT had
referred to the evidence available on record and then arrived at its
conclusion, the re-appreciation of evidence by the High Court is
without being sensitive to nature of lis before it."
10. In the given facts, learned Tribunal rejected the claim of
claimants/appellants regarding income of the deceased as carpenter by
observing that in the absence of any cogent documentary evidence
regarding his salary, mere oral depositions in support cannot be held to be
conclusive proof. However, ld. Tribunal, while doing so, failed to consider
that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being a beneficial piece of legislation, strict
rules of evidence as applicable in a civil or criminal trial, are not applicable
in motor accident compensation cases. Reliance in this regard can be
placed upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in "Rajwati @ Rajjo v.
United India Insurance Company Ltd.", reported as 2023(3) Apex Court
Judgments (SC) 684, relevant paras from which are reproduced hereunder:
"18. Similarly, in the case of Kusum Lata & Ors. v. Satbir & Ors.
(2011) 3 SCC 646, this Court observed that it is well known that in a
case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not
required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal
trial. The Court must keep this distinction in mind.
19. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial
piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation
cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been
established, the Tribunal's role would be to award just and fair
compensation. As held by this Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum
Lata (Supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial,
are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to
say, "the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of
preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof
TEJWINDER SINGH beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases"."
FAO-6224-2018 (O&M) -6-
11. In the present case, Rajpreet Kaur (wife) and Swaran Singh
(father of the deceased) while deposing as CW-1 and CW-3 respectively
deposed that deceased was working as a carpenter and drawing salary of
Rs. 30,000/- per month. It cannot be denied that apart from maintaining his
family including one minor child, he was also taking care of his old age
mother being the only bread winner of his family. In such circumstances,
assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month as an
unskilled labour was not appropriate. Even if the salary as Rs.30,000/- as
claimed by his wife was not to be completely taken into consideration, in
the present facts it would be appropriate in case the income of the
deceased was assessed as Rs. 10,000/- per month when he was working
as a craftsman.
12. In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt.Sarla
Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009
(3) RCR (Civil) 77, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi
and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, and Satwinder Kaur's case (supra)
compensation awarded under conventional heads is also required to be
reassessed. Claimants are held entitled to Rs.18,000/- as compensation
under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate
by applying 10% increase under the conventional heads. Loss of
consortium is to be awarded to the tune of Rs.48,000/- x 4 (Rs.1,92,000) as
appellants/claimants being spouse and parents of deceased are also
entitled for spousal and parental consortium; but simultaneously,
appellants/claimants are not entitled for compensation on account of loss of
love and affection.
FAO-6224-2018 (O&M) -7-
13. In view of the discussion made above, the appellants/claimants
shall be entitled for the grant of following compensation:-
Sr.No. Nature Amount in
Rupees
1. Annual Income of deceased Rs.1,20,000/-
2. Add 40% of Future prospects Rs.48,000/-
3 Total Income (Rs.1,20,000 + 48,000) Rs.1,68.000/-
4. Deduction (1/4th) Rs.42,000/-
5. Income after applying multiplier of 17 as per Rs.21,42,000/-
age of 26years(Rs.1,26,000/- X 17)
7. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-
8. Loss of Consortium (Rs.48000x4) Rs.1,92,000/-
9. Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.23,70,000/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.13,55,200/-
Enhanced Amount Rs.10,14,800/-
14. The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not just in view of
the facts and circumstances of the present case; rather as per the
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Supe Dei and
others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other,(2009) (4)
SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as Puttamma and
others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443,
the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation
awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its
realization. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation
FAO-6224-2018 (O&M) -8-
already paid to the claimants shall be deducted from the enhanced
compensation.
15. Disposed off in the above terms.
16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
05.08.2024 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
Tejwinder JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
