Punjab-Haryana High Court
Asruddin And Ors vs Kabir And Ors on 30 January, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012694
FAO-2162-2010 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:012694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
207
FAO-2162-2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 30.01.2024
Asruddin and Others ..... Appellants
Versus
Kabir and Others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate for the appellants.
None for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Assem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants
aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon vide award dated 20.04.2009.
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.
3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following
compensation :
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly income Rs.2,400/-
2 Annual income [Rs.2,400 x 12] = Rs.28,800/-
3 Deduction 1/3rd [Rs.28,800 - 9,600] = Rs.19,200/-
4 Multiplier of 15 [Rs.19,200 x 15] = Rs.2,88,000/-
5 Last rites Rs.5,000/-
6 Loss of consortium Rs.5,000/-
7 Total Compensation Rs.2,98,000/-
Interest 9% per annum
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012694
FAO-2162-2010 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:012694
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that
the deceased in the present case was 20 years of age and the accident took place
on 17.04.2007 and the deceased succumbed to his injuries on 18.04.2007. A
child was born after his death on 14.10.2007. It is further the contention of the
learned counsel that the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed as
Rs.2,400/- per month as the minimum wage of an unskilled worker prevailing
at the time of the accident was Rs.2,553/- per month. It is further the
contention of the learned counsel that deduction of 1/3rd has wrongly been
applied by the Tribunal, whereas it ought to have been 1/4th since the child was
born after his death on 14.10.2007. It is further argued that a multiplier of 15
was wrongly applied, whereas it should have been 18 keeping in view the age
of the deceased being 20 years. It is further the contention of the learned
counsel that no amount has been awarded towards future prospects and that the
amount awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head loss of
consortium is also not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the
claimant-appellants has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
& Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121], National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company
Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and
N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company
Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642].
5. None has been putting in appearance on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 and 2 despite service.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012694
FAO-2162-2010 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:012694
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been
awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any
enhancement.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. In the present case, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the
deceased as Rs.2,400/- per month, however, the minimum wage of an unskilled
worker prevailing at the time of the accident was Rs.2,553/- per month and
hence the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.2,553/- per month. The
Tribunal has also wrongly applied a deduction of 1/3rd whereas it ought to have
been 1/4th inasmuch as the child was born on 14.10.2007. The Birth Certificate
of the child has been appended as Annexure P-5 vide CM No.10771-CII of
2010. Further, the deceased was 20 years of age at the time of the accident and
the Tribunal has wrongly applied a multiplier of 15 which ought to have been
18 as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla
Verma (supra). Further, no amount has been awarded towards future prospects
and hence as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% addition is made towards future prospects.
Further, the amount awarded under the conventional heads and under the head
loss of consortium are not as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance
Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra) and hence the claimant-
appellants 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 and the claimant-appellants would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- each
(Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012694
FAO-2162-2010 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:012694
9. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly income Rs.2,553/-
2 Annual income [Rs.2,553 x 12] = Rs.30,636/-
3 Deduction 1/4th [Rs.30,636 - 7,659] = Rs.22,977/-
4. Future prospects @ 40% [Rs.22,977+ 9,191] = Rs.32,168/-
5 Multiplier 18 (Rs.32,168 x 18) = Rs.5,79,024/-
6 Loss of estate (Rs.15,000+20% increase) Rs.18,000/-
7 Funeral expenses (Rs.15,000+20% increase) Rs.18,000/-
8 Loss of Consortium :
(i) Parental Rs.48,000/-
(ii) Filial Rs.96,000/- (48,000 x 2)
(iii) Spousal Rs.48,000/-
(Total Rs.1,92,000/-)
9 Total Compensation Rs.8,07,024/-
10 Amount Awarded by the Rs.2,98,000/-
Tribunal
Enhanced amount Rs.5,09,024/-
10. 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 amount
shall be apportioned between the claimant-appellants as directed by the
Tribunal.
11. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed and
the award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending applications,
if any, also stand disposed off.
30.01.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
D.Bansal JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012694
4 of 4
