Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pushpa Rani And Others on 1 February, 2024

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

FAO No.3324 of 2012 1 2024:PHHC:014264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

653-1 FAO No.3324 of 2012
Date of Decision : 01.02.2024

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Appellant
VERSUS
Pushpa Rani and Others ....Respondents

653-2 FAO No.4025 of 2012

Pushpa Rani and Others ....Appellants
VERSUS
Satish Kumar and Others ....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present : Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate
for the appellant in FAO-3324-2012 and
for respondent No.5 in FAO-4025-2012.

Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate
for the appellants in FAO-4025-2012 and
for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in FAO-3324-2012.
Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.8 in FAO-3324-2012 and
for respondent No.4 in FAO-4025-2012.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. This common order will dispose off both the above captioned

appeals being FAO-3324-2012 filed by the Insurance Company and FAO-

4025-2012 filed by the claimants challenging the award dated 19.12.2011

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred

to as the 'Tribunal').

integrity of this order/judgment

FAO No.3324 of 2012 2 2024:PHHC:014264

2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by

the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for

the sake of brevity.

FAO-3324-2012

3. The Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal

aggrieved by the award to the extent that it was a case of contributory

negligence and that since it was a head on collision, 50% of the amount of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal ought to have been deducted towards

contributory negligence.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has stated that

since it was a head on collision, it was a clear case of contributory

negligence and hence the Tribunal has erred in not deducting 50% of the

amount of compensation awarded by it towards contributory negligence.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the claimants has contended that

in the present case the argument qua contributory negligence was not raised

before the Tribunal and that the driver even did not step into witness-box in

the present case and hence there is no question of contributory negligence.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the present case the plea qua contributory negligence was not

raised by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. There is not a whisper

in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal qua the plea of contributory

negligence having been raised. Further still, the driver, who could have

possibly deposed as to whether it was a case of contributory negligence, did

not step into the witness-box.

8. In view of the above the appeal (FAO-3324-2012) filed by the

Insurance Company Bajaj, being devoid of any merits, is dismissed.




integrity of this order/judgment

                         FAO No.3324 of 2012                      3                    2024:PHHC:014264

                        FAO-4025-2012

9. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants aggrieved by

the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

10. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation :

                          Sr.                 Heads                    Compensation Awarded
                          No.
                             1     Monthly income               Rs.15,770/-
                             2     Annual income                [Rs.15,770 x 12] = Rs.1,89,240/-
                             3     Amount after applying        Rs.1,41,960/-
                                   deduction 1/4th
                             4     Multiplier of 15             [Rs.1,41,960 x15] = Rs.21,29,400/-
                             5     Loss of estate               Rs.5,000/-
                             6     Funeral expenses             Rs.5,000/-
                             7     Loss of consortium           Rs.5,000/-
                                   Total Compensation           Rs.21,44,400/- (rounded off to
                                                                Rs.21,44,500/-)
                                   Interest                     7.5% per annum

11. Learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the

Tribunal has taken the salary of the deceased as Rs.15,769/- per month,

rounded off to Rs.15,770/- per month, though his salary was Rs.23,106/-.

Learned counsel for the claimants would further contend that the Tribunal

has deducted 30% from the salary of the deceased towards income tax,

however, the income tax slab at the relevant point of time was 10%. It is

further the contention that the amount awarded under the heads loss of

estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium is also on the lower side. In

support of his contention learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of National

Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680],

Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias

integrity of this order/judgment

FAO No.3324 of 2012 4 2024:PHHC:014264

Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs.

Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR

(Civil) 642].

12. Per contra learned counsel for the Insurance Company has

contended that sufficient amount of compensation has been awarded to the

claimants and there is no scope of any further enhancement. Learned counsel

for the Insurance Company has also contended that income tax from the

salary of the deceased has rightly been deducted as 30%. It has further been

contended that wife of the deceased has got the appointment on

compassionate ground.

13. Heard.

14. In the present case the deceased was working as an Excise

Inspector and his income was Rs.23,106/- per month, his salary certificate

was having been duly proved. The income tax slab in the year 2009 was

10% and hence the Tribunal has erred in deducting 30% towards income tax.

After deducing 10% income tax from the salary of the deceased his income

is assessed as Rs.22,046/- per month. The deduction towards dependency as

1/4th and the multiplier of 15 have rightly been applied by the Tribunal.

However, no addition was made towards loss of future prospects. Since the

deceased in the present case was a salaried person and hence keeping in

view his age and as per the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi

(supra), 50% addition ought to have been made towards loss of future

prospects. Under the conventional heads, the claimants would be entitled to

Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and

Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses as per the

law laid down in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra).

integrity of this order/judgment

FAO No.3324 of 2012 5 2024:PHHC:014264

The claimants would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20%

increase) towards loss of consortium. The argument of the learned counsel

for the respondent regarding employment of the wife of the deceased

deserves to be rejected for the reason that merely because the widow was

given a compassionate appointment would be no ground to dismiss the claim

petition.

15. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :

                         Sr. No.               Heads                      Compensation Awarded
                               1    Monthly income                   Rs.23,106/-
                               2    Annual income                    [Rs.23,106 x 12] = Rs.2,77,272/-
                               3    Annual income minus income Rs.2,64,552/-
                                    tax @ 10% i.e. Upto        [Rs.2,77,272 - 12,727/- i.e. 10% of
                                    Rs.1,50,000/-           -  Rs.1,27,272/-]
                                    0%
                                    1,50,001 to Rs.3,00,000 -
                                    10%
                               4    Deduction 1/4th                  [Rs.2,64,552 - 66,138] =
                                                                     Rs.1,98,414/-
                               5    Future prospects @ 50%           [Rs.1,98,414 + 99,207] =
                                                                     Rs.2,97,621/-
                               6    Multiplier of 15                 [Rs.2,97,621 x 15] = Rs.44,64,315/-
                               7    Loss of estate                   Rs.18,000/-
                               8    Funeral expenses                 Rs.18,000/-
                               9    Loss of Consortium :
                                    (i) Parental                     [Rs.48000 x 2] Rs.96,000/-
                                    (ii) Spousal                     Rs.48,000/-
                                    (iii) Filial                     Rs.48,000/-
                                                                     (Total Rs.1,92,000/-)
                                    Total Compensation               Rs. 46,92,315/-

16. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount

awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from

the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.

The enhanced amount of compensation shall be apportioned amongst the

claimants as directed by the Tribunal.

integrity of this order/judgment

FAO No.3324 of 2012 6 2024:PHHC:014264

17. In view of the above discussion, the appeal being FAO-3324-

2012 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the appeal being

FAO-4025-2012 filed by the claimants is allowed. The award passed by the

Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand

disposed off.