Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Kaur Etc vs Avtar Singh Etc on 24 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010053
FAO-671-1992 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:010053 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
205
FAO-671-1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.01.2024
Narinder Kaur and others .....Claimant-Appellants
versus
Avtar Singh and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Simran, Advocate for
Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the Insurance Company.
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants for
enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award
dated 12.02.1992, on account of death of Amardip Singh in a motor
vehicular accident.
2. This is a reconstructed case, as the original file was burnt in the
fire that broke out in the concerned branch in the year 2011. Since the case is
pending for more than 32 years, the counsel for the parties have no
objection, if the same is decided on the basis of the available record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased,
26 years old at the relevant time, was an Engineer and working in Afcon
Pauling Joint Venture, Ludhiana and earning Rs.2000/- per month. He left
behind his parents and sister, however, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly
dependency to the tune of Rs.1500/- per month, which is on the lower side.
No amount has been awarded towards conventional heads, funeral expenses
and loss of estate.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010053
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance company
has opposed the present appeal and stated that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Thus, she prays for the dismissal of the
present appeal.
5. Heard and perused.
6. There is no dispute that the death of Amardip Singh occurred in
a roadside accident caused by respondent No.1- driver. Pertinently, since
there is no challenge to the factum of the accident, the manner of its taking
place, as well as liability fastened upon the owner and the insurance
company to be joint and several, thus, no further scrutiny is warranted.
7. Perusal of the award it reveals that there being no income proof
proved on record, the Tribunal has taken it as Rs.1500/-, which cannot be
faulted with. For the aspect of enhancement of compensation, this Court can
make a profitable reference to the law laid down in Sarla Verma vs. DTC,
(2009) 6 SCC 121, involving an accident with a bus belonging to the Delhi
Transport Corporation, on 18.04.1988, causing the death of a Scientist,
working in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, and vide award
dated 06.08.1993, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, New Delhi partly
allowed the claim and granted compensation of Rs. 5,79,000/-, which, when
challenged before the High Court was enhanced to Rs. 7,19,624/- in a
judgment dated 15.02.2007. Being not satisfied therefrom, when the
claimants approached Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which after considering a
catena of judgments, increased the same to Rs. 8,84,870/- and observed that
an objective approach should be adopted for arriving at just compensation
and elaborating thereupon it was held that there should be a uniformity while
calculating the same, relating to increase in future prospects, deduction
towards personal expenses of the deceased, multiplier to be applied and also
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010053
grant of lump sum amount under the heads of (a) loss of estate, (b) loss of
consortium and (c) funeral expenses. In Janabai vs. ICICI Lambord
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 512, an accident occurred on
01.06.2007, causing the death of the deceased, who was riding
a motorcycle and got struck by a car, the Tribunal awarded the claimants
compensation amounting to Rs.8,90,000/-, which was challenged by the
Insurance company, and the claim was dismissed. However, on approaching
Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the judgment was set aside and they were
granted Rs. 11,63,000/- as enhanced compensation in view of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein it had
been additionally held that, "Reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs
15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should
be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
8. Consequentially, the claimants-appellants are entitled to
enhancement of compensation by granting them future prospects to the
extent of 40%, being in a private job and also for the compensation under the
conventional heads i.e. Rs.36,000/- for funeral expenses and loss of estate;
Rs.96,000/- (48,000 x 2) for filial consortium to the parents. The deceased
being 26 years, the multiplier of 17 should be applied. Further, there were
two dependents, the deduction of 1/2 ought to be made.
9. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.3,46,200/-
(1500 (monthly income) + 40% (towards future prospects) - 1/2th (deduction
towards personal expenses) x12 x 17 (multiplier) + Rs.1,32,000/-
(conventional head). Thus, the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,96,200/-,
over and above the amount of Rs.50,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal,
alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, in view of the judgment
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010053
in Dharampal vs. U.P. SRTC, (2008) 12 SCC 208, from the date of the
passing of the award, till its realization, shall be deposited, as ordered by the
Tribunal, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this judgment, failing which, it shall accrue an interest as awarded
by the Tribunal.
10. The said amount be kept in FDR, earning the maximum rate of
interest till its disbursal to the claimant-appellants.
11. The Tribunal is directed to make earnest efforts to release the
amount to the claimant-appellants at the earliest, in accordance with law.
12. Modifying the award to the aforesaid extent, the present appeal
is disposed of.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
24.01.2024 JUDGE
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010053
4 of 4
