Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anita Rani And Another vs Sukhbir And Others on 5 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100234
1
FAO No.3095 of 2021 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.
No.3095 of 2021(O&M)
Date of Reserve: 23.07.2024
Date of Decision: 05.08.2024
ANITA RANI AND ANR. ......Appellant(s)
Vs
SUKBIR AND ORS ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ
MANUJA
Present: Mr. Hoshiar Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants.
appellant
Mr. Satpal Dhimja, Advocate
for
or respondent No.3/Insurance Company.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated
24.03.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula
(hereinafter
hereinafter to be referred as "the Tribunal"), whereby an amount of Rs.4.65,52
520/-
as compensation was awarded to the appellants/claimants along with interest @
7.5%
% per annum.
[2]. The appellants/claimants
appellants/claimants being dependents upon the deceased, filed
claim petition before the Tribunal praying for grant of compensation to the tune of
Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees
( Fourty lakhs Only) on account of death of Mangat Ram in
a motor vehicular accident which took place on 14.11.2018,, alleging rash and
negligent driving of respondent No.1-Driver.
No.1
[3]. Learned Tribunal after appraisal of evidence and record held that
accident occurred due to rash and negligent
negligent driving of respondent No.
No.1/
1/ driver and
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100234
after assessing income of the deceased while working as skilled labourer @
Rs.9,888/- per month, awarded compensation
ation in the following manner:-
S.No Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs)
1. Loss of dependency Rs.3,95,520/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.4,65,520/-
[4]. Being aggrieved against the award dated 24.03.2021, 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 as held by the Tribunal being in favour of appellants,, for
the sake of brevity, those are not being repeated here.
[5]. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants assailed the award by
submitting that the deceased was a trained machine turner holding an ITI
certificate earning
ing Rs.20,000/-per
per month and learned Tribunal wrongly assessed
his monthly income as skilled labourer @ Rs.9,888/
Rs.9,888/- per month and, thus, the same
was liable to be enhanced. He further contended that in view of ""Smt.
Smt. Sarla Verma
another", reported as 2009 (3)
and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another
RCR (Civil) 77,, the deduction of 1/3 made by the learned Tribunal
ribunal was erroneous
as deceased was survived by 5 family members and as such deduction of 1/4
should have been made. He even argued that in light of "National Insurance
others", reported as 2017(4) RCR (Civil)
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others",
1009, the compensation awarded under conventional heads was on the lower
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100234
side.Lastly, he contended that the order of depositing 70% of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal in shape of Fixed Deposit for a period of 5 years was also
uncalled for in view of the settled law and the same ought to be released to them at
the earliest.
[6]. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent
No.3/Insurance
nsurance Company
ompany submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
income of deceased on the basis of minimum wages as skilled labourer. He further
contended that appellants-claimants
appellants ts have been adequately compensated and thus
the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
[7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper
book of the case. I find force in the arguments
arguments advanced by the learning counsel
for the appellants/claimants.
[8]. In the present case, the deceased worked as a trained machine turner
and held an ITI certificate. However, besides the
the oral testimony of appellant N
No.
o. 2/
claimant appearing as PW4.
PW4 no authentic documentation was presented before the
Tribunal or this Court.
ourt. Additionally, perusal of Ex.PW3/1 shows that most of the
deposits in the bank account of the deceased were relating to maturity of the FDRs.
Thus, Learned Tribunal rightly assessed
assessed income of the deceased on the basis of
minimum wages as of skilled labourer @ Rs.9,888/
9,888/- per month.
[8.1]. In view of the Sarla Verma's case (supra) the deduction to be made
from the income of deceased towards contribution to family has to be based upon
number of legal heirs of the deceased and the fact that deceased had 3 married
daughters who were not even impleaded as claimants is imma
immaterial
terial because
deceased would have had spent some portion of his income towards his married
daughters as well. This view was even affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100234
of "Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram
&Ors.",, reported as 2018 (18) SCC 130.. Thus, the deduction in the present case is
to be made of 1/4 and not 1/3 as assessed by learned Tribunal.
[8.2]. Now coming to the prayer of the appellant
appellants regarding release of 70%
of compensation awarded from the fixed deposit of 5 years, this Court in its
humble opinion holds that it shall be released in favour appellants forthwith and
reliance in this regard can be placed on decision rendered by the Hon'b
Hon'ble
le Supreme
Court in case of "A.V. Padma and Ors. vs R. Venugopal and Ors."
Ors.",, reported as
378, whereby it was held that learned Tribunals shall not be rigid in
2012 (3) SCC 378,
granting the release of compensation from fixed deposit upon application made by
claimants
mants and relevant para thereof is reproduced hereunder: -
"5. Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to
insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed
deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate
persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand
and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of
compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are
taking such a rigid and mechanical approa
approach
ch without understanding
and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of
minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semi-
semi
literate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above
guidelines were issued by this
this Court only to safeguard the interests of
the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose
amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The
guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were
to take
take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release
of the money. The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to
pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits.
However, it is seen that even in cases when there iiss no possibility or
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100234
chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to
ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the
amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the
Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the
object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the
genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate
persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the
amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording
amount
that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the
society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations,
the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such inves
investment
tment in the larger
interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the
compensation awarded to him. The Tribunals very often dispose of the
claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation
in a mechanical manner and without
without proper application of mind. This
has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The
Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this
Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in
long term
term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can
release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is
required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part
of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of just
justice."
[9]. Further, in
i view of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla
Verma's and Pranay Sethi & others" cases (supra) and "United India Insurance
Kaur", reported as (2021) 11 SCC 780,
the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also required to be re-
re
assessed. Claimants are entitled for Rs.18,000/-
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
conventional heads. Loss of consortium is to be awarded to the tune of
Rs.96,000/- (Rs.48,000/-
(Rs. x 2) as appellants/claimants being spouse and son of
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100234
deceased are also entitled for spousal and filial consortium; but simultaneously,
they are not entitled for compensation on account of loss of love and affection.
[10]. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the
appellants/claimants shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the
following manner:-
manner
Sr.No. Nature Amount in
Rupees
1. Annual Income of deceased Rs.1,18,656/-
Rs.1,18,656/
2. Deduction (1/4th) Rs.29,664/-
Rs.29,664/
3 Net Income after Deduction Rs.88,992/-
Rs.88,992/
4. Income after applying multiplier of 5 as Rs.4,44,960/-
Rs.4,44,960/
per age of 67years(Rs.88,992/
67years(Rs.88,992/- X 5)
5. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-
Rs.18,000/
5. Loss of Consortium (Rs.48000 x 2) Rs.96,000/-
Rs.96,000/
7. Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
Rs.18,000/
Total Compensation Rs.5,76,960/-
Rs.5,76,960/
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.4,65,520/-
Rs.4,65,520/
Enhanced Amount Rs.1,11,440/-
Rs.1,11,440/
[11]. The grant of interest @ 7.5%
% per annum is unjust 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
led as Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another,
443, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount
2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443,
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
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100234
compensation already paid to the claimants
claim shall
all be deducted from the enhanced
compensation.
[12]. In view of aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed
of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
August 05, 2024
4 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
