Punjab-Haryana High Court
S.B.I. General Insurance Company vs Asha Devi And Others on 6 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100275
1
FAO No.3446 of 2024 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.
No.3446 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Reserve: 25.07.2024
Date of Decision: 06.08.2024
S.B.I. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant(s)
Vs
ASHA DEVI AND OTHERS ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ
MANUJA
Present:Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated
07.05.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh
(hereinafter
hereinafter to be referred as "the Tribunal"), whereby an amount of Rs.24,00,000
24,00,000/-
as compensation was awarded to the respondent No.1 and 22/claimants
/claimants along with
interest @ 7%
% per annum.
[2]. Respondent Nos.1
Nos.1 and 2/claimants being parents of deceased, filed
claim petition before the Tribunal praying for grant of compensation to tthe
he tune of
Rs.1,00,00,000/-- (Rupees One crore only)) along with interest @ 12% per annum
on account of death of their daughter Muskan alias Muskan Bhatti in a motor
vehicular accident which took place on 11.05.2022 while alleging rash and
negligent driving of respondent No.3/driver.
[3]. Learned Tribunal after appraisal of evidence and record held that
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3/driver
3/driver and
after assessing notional income of the deceased @ Rs.15,000/
Rs.15,000/- per month, awarded
compensation in the following manner: -
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100275
S.No Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs)
1. Loss of dependency Rs.22,68,000/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.96,000/-
3. Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
4. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/-
Total Rs.24,00,000/-
[4]. Being aggrieved against the award dated 07.05.2024,, the present
appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance
appellant/ nsurance Company
ompany for reduction in
compensation awarded by ld. Tribunal. Facts as specified in the claim petition
about the factum of accident and the issue regarding negligence of the driver as
held by the Tribunal are not in dispute, therefore, for the sake of brevity, those are
not being repeated here.
[5]. Learned counsel for the appellant/
appellant/Insurance Company assailed the
award on the grounds that deceased was only a student (B. Com, 2nd Semester)
and as such was not earning any income and
and, thus, learned Tribunal wrongly
assessed her notional income @ Rs.15,000/-
Rs.15,000/ per month whereas it was liable to be
assessed on lower side on the basis of prevalent Minimum Wages at the time of
motor vehicular accident,
accident as per settled
ed law. He placed reliance on the following
judgments: "Kirti and Anr. Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd."
Ltd.",, reported as
2021 (1) R.C.R (Civil) 478; other", reported as 2015
478 "Rajan vs Soly Sebastian & other"
962 "Shri Ram
(3) R.C.R (Civil) 962; am General Ins. Com. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs Beant
", reported as 2020 ACJ 2163; "United
Kaur and Ors.", United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs
Others" decision rendered in FAO No.
Smt. Neelam & Others", o. 4712 & 8487 of 2015 of
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100275
this Court; "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Surti Devi and Ors
Ors.",
.", FAO
no. 3239 of 2016 of this Court. No other point has been argued.
[6]. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper-
paper
book of the case. I do not find force in the arguments advanced by lea
learned
rned counsel
for the appellant/Insurance
appellant/I Company.
QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED
[7] In the given facts and circumstances and also on the basis of material
available on record,
record learned Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased
as Rs.15,000/- per month by taking into consideration the fact that she being young
girl of 19 years of age and enrolled into B.Com course at Chandigarh University,
Gharaun, would have had bright future and reasonable earning capacity. Minimum
wages alone cannot be an absolute criterion to assess the income of a deceased
when
hen documentary evidence regarding income of deceased is un-available.
available. It was
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "ZakirHussein vs Sabir and others"
others",, reported
141, that notification of minimum wages is only a yardstick
as 2015(2) RCR(Civil) 141,
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.
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 fu
further
rther 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
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100275
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/
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/-
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
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/-
150/ per day ( L 4,500/- per month i.e. L 54,000/
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/-
51,000/ for a peri
period
od of one year and five
months. We have to enhance the same to L 76,500/
76,500/- ( L 4,500 X 17
months)."
[7.1]. In "Kubrabibi
"Kubrabibi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd."
Ltd.", reported as 2023(3)
23, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the absence
Apex Court Judgments (SC) 23,
of definite
efinite proof of the income, the social status of the deceased is to be kept in
perspective where such persons are employed in unorganized secto
sector.
r. Relevant para
from this judgment
ment is reproduced here under:-
under:
"7. In a matter of the present nature where the ccompensation
ompensation 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
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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100275
he was a skilled person, the
the daily income at Rs.200/
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
arrived at its conclusion, the re
re-appreciation
appreciation of
evidence by the High Court is without being sensitive to nature of lis
before it."
[8]. Learned Tribunal rightly assessed the notional income of the deceased
in the absence of documentary evidence regarding her income while considering
the fact that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being a beneficial piece of legislation, strict
rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, were not applicable
able in motor
vehicular accident compensation cases. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Rajwati @ Rajjo v. United India
Ltd." reported as 2023(3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 684,
Insurance Company Ltd.",
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
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 KusumLata
(Supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are
ar
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 beyond all reasonable
doubt which is followed in criminal cases"."
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100275
[8.1]. Moreover, in
in the present case, father of the deceased, Mohinder Pal,
while deposing as PW-1
PW tendered affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he affirmed the
fact that deceased was studying in 2nd semester of B. Com course at Chandigarh
University, Gharuan, Mohali
Mohali and also submitted her educational certificates as
Ex.P6 to P9 which further went on to prove that the deceased was a student of
above average calibre. No counter evidence was brought on record by the
appellant/Insurance Company to rebut the same. Also
Also,, it cannot be denied that had
the deceased went on live then she would have had every reasonable chance to
excel in her life and earn adequate income.
[8.2]. Now coming to the judgments referred by learned Counsel for the
appellant/insurance company, his reliance on Kirti's case (supra) is completely
misplaced as in the said judgment itself the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 12
thereof held that in absence of any documentary proof of income it is not
reasonable to assess income based on the lowest
lowest-tier
tier of minimum wages. His
reliance on Soly Sebatian's case (supra) can also be treated as not to be to the
benefit of appellant-Company
appellant Company in view of exposition of law made in Zakir
Hussein's case (supra), Kukrabibi's case (supra) and Rajwati @ Rajjo's case
(supra). Further, his reliance on Beant Kaur's case (supra) cannot be considered to
decide the present case as in that case controversy was with regard to taking
income on the basis on DC rates or minimum wages. Similarly, Smt. Neelam and
Smt. Surti Devi's cases (supra) also involved the issue whether assessment of
income should be done on the basis of DC rate or minimum wages and hence could
come to aid of learned Counsel for the appellant.
[9]. In such circumstances and in view of discussion made herein above,
considering the status of deceased, who was even maintaining a two wheeler
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100275
besides, her educational background and merits, assessment of her notional income
as Rs.15,000/- per month in relation to an accident which too
took
k place on 11.05.2022
by learned Tribunal was appropriate and warrants no interference. Thus, present
appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
[10]. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall stand disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
August 06, 2024
4 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
