Punjab-Haryana High Court

Faijab Khan vs Manjit And Ors on 2 July, 2024

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

238 FAO No.3033 of 2010
Date of Decision : 02.07.2024

Faijab Khan ....Appellant

VERSUS

Manjit and Others ....Respondents

238-1 FAO No.1348 of 2011

Hasina and Others ....Appellants

VERSUS

Manjit and Others ....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present : Appellant - Faijab Khan in person with
Ms. Kiran Verma, Advocate
Legal Aid Counsel in FAO-3033-2010 and
respondent No.5 in FAO-1348-2011.

Mr. R.K. Agnihotri, Advocate
for the appellants in FAO-1348-2011 and
for respondent Nos.4 and 6 to 11 in FAO-3033-2010.

Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for the Insurance Company.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

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

appeals being FAO-3033-2010 filed by the father of the deceased - Faijaan

Khan - and FAO-1348-2011 filed by one of the sister of the deceased and

legal representatives of his grandparents, challenging the quantum of

integrity of this order/judgment

compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Yamunanagar at Jagadhari (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide

award dated 08.02.2010.

2. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation :

                         Sr. No.              Heads                    Compensation Awarded
                               1   Monthly income                Rs.3,000/-
                               2   Annual income                 [Rs.3,000 x 12] = Rs.36,000/-
                               3   Amount after applying         [Rs.36,000 - 118,000] = Rs.18,000/-
                                   50% deduction
                               4   Multiplier of 13              [Rs.36,000 x 13] = Rs.2,34,000/-
                               5   Funeral expenses              Rs.7,000/-
                                   Total Compensation            Rs.2,41,000/-
                                   Interest                      7.5% per annum

3. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the deceased -

Faijaan Khan - aged about 20 years, a mason by profession, died in a motor

vehicle accident due to the injuries sustained by him. The accident was

caused by respondent No.1 who was driving the truck bearing registration

No.HR-67-3509 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle') at a high

speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The offending vehicle hit the

motorcycle of the deceased from behind resulting in fatal injuries to the

deceased. The claim petition was filed by the father i.e. Faijab Khan,

appellant in FAO-3033-2010 and two sisters of the deceased and his

grandparents. One sister and the legal representatives of the grand parents of

the deceased are appellants in FAO-1348-2011.

4. Appellant - Faijab Khan - has appeared in person and stated that

he would like to argue the case himself and would not require the assistance

of the Legal Aid Counsel and hence Ms. Kiran Verma, Advocate, appointed

as Legal Aid Counsel pursuant to order dated 23.08.2022 is discharged. The

integrity of this order/judgment

appellant appearing in person in FAO-3033-2010 would contend that the

Tribunal had categorically held that the sisters and grandparents of the

deceased were not entitled to the compensation and it was only the father

who was entitled to the compensation. However, while passing the award it

has been directed by the Tribunal that the entire amount of compensation be

divided amongst the claimants. It is further the contention of the appellant

that the amount awarded is on the lower side.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants in FAO-1348-2011 has

contended that the deceased was residing with his grandparents and that the

children had been abandoned by the father and hence the sisters and the legal

representatives of the grandparents, who are uncles and aunts of the

deceased, would be entitled to the compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that

there is no scope of any further enhancement.

7. Heard.

8. The deceased in the present case was 20 years of age at the time

of accident. His income has been assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month on the

basis of minimum wages. In the year 2008 the minimum wages of an

unskilled labourer were Rs.3,664/- per month and hence the income of the

deceased is assessed as Rs.3,664/- per month. The deceased admittedly was

bachelor and hence the Tribunal has rightly applied 50% deduction towards

personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal has applied a multiplier of

13 as per age of the father of the deceased which is not in accordance with

the law. The deceased was 20 years of age and hence as per the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121] a multiplier of

integrity of this order/judgment

18 would be applicable. The Tribunal has not made any addition towards

loss of future prospects and hence as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay

Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] an addition of 40% would be applicable

towards loss of future prospects. Further, the amount awarded under the

conventional heads is not in accordance with the law and no amount has

been awarded under the head 'loss of consortium' and hence as per the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi

(supra), 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], 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 and the claimants

(father and sisters of the deceased) would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/-

each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of filial consortium.

Accordingly, the reworked out compensation is as under :

                          Sr.                Heads                    Compensation Awarded
                          No.
                            1      Monthly income              Rs.3,664/-
                            2      Annual income               [Rs.3,664 x 12] = Rs.43,968/-
                            3      Deduction 50%               [Rs.43,968 - 21,984] = Rs.21,984/-
                            4. Future prospects @ 40%          [Rs.21,984+ 8,794] = Rs.30,778/-
                            5      Multiplier 18               [Rs. 30,778 x 18] = Rs.5,54,004/-
                            6      Loss of estate              Rs.18,000/-
                            7      Funeral expenses            Rs.18,000/-
                            8      Loss of Filial Consortium : Rs.1,44,000/- (48,000 x 3)
                                   Total Compensation          Rs.7,34,004/-






integrity of this order/judgment

9. The Tribunal had held that the sisters and grandparents of the

deceased would not be entitled to compensation, however, while passing the

award, it was held that the compensation would be payable to all in equal

shares. The said finding cannot be sustained. There is no evidence on the

record that the grandparents were dependent in any manner on the deceased

and hence they would not be entitled to any compensation. Further, there is

also no evidence that the sisters were dependent on the deceased. Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs.

Anand Pal & Ors. [2023 (4) PLR 380] has held that in the absence of any

evidence the married siblings cannot be considered as dependents. It was

held as under :

"8. Looking at the above, the Tribunal and the High

Court should not have considered the three older married

siblings, to be dependent on the deceased victim. The

compensation awarded to the married siblings is

therefore found to be unmerited. The appeal is

accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned award

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as upheld by the

High Court under the impugned judgment."

10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the sisters would be

entitled to only loss of filial consortium.

11. In view of the above discussion, the award passed by the

Tribunal is modified accordingly. 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

integrity of this order/judgment

the entire amount.

12. The appeal being FAO-3033-2010 filed by the father of the

deceased is allowed. The father would be entitled to enhanced amount of

compensation of Rs.6,38,004/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from