Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sobha Devi And Anr vs Vijay Kumar Morya And Ors on 14 March, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:037191
686
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-104-2013 (O&M)
Date of decision : 14.03.2024
Sobha Devi & Anr. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Vijay Kumar Morya & Ors. ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for
Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.4.
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, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'),
vide award dated 31.05.2012.
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.3,000/-
2 Annual Income [Rs.3,000x12] = Rs.36,000/-
3 Deduction 50% [Rs.36,000-18,000] = Rs.18,000/-
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:037191
FAO-104-2013 (O&M) -2-
4 Multiplier - 13 [Rs.18,000x13] = Rs.2,34,000/-
5 Funeral expenses Rs.2,500/-
6 Total Compensation Rs.2,36,500/-
Interest 7.5% per annum
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that
the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed as Rs.3,000/- per
month as the minimum wage of an unskilled worker prevailing at the time of
the accident was Rs.4,214/- per month. It is further the contention of the
learned counsel that though the deduction of 50% has rightly been applied
by the Tribunal, however, multiplier '13' has wrongly been applied, whereas
it ought to have been '18' keeping in view the age of the deceased being 22
years at the time of the accident. It is further the contention of the learned
counsel that no amount has been awarded towards future prospects as well
as under the head 'loss of consortium' and further that the amount awarded
under the conventional heads is also on the lower side. In support of his
contentions he 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].
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:037191
FAO-104-2013 (O&M) -3-
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.4-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.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. In the present case, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the
deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, however, the minimum wage of an
unskilled worker prevailing at the time of the accident was Rs.4,214/- per
month and hence the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.4,214/- per
month. The Tribunal has though rightly applied deduction to the extent of
50%, however, multiplier '13' has wrongly been applied and hence, as per
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla
Verma (supra), multiplier '18' would be applicable keeping in view the age
of the deceased being 22 years at the time of the accident. Further, no
addition has been made 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 is on the lower side 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 (supra) and N.
Jayasree (supra), the claimant-appellants would be entitled to Rs.18,000/-
(Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/-
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:037191
FAO-104-2013 (O&M) -4-
(Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimant-
appellants (parents of the deceased) would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/-
each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium. Accordingly,
the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.4,214/-
2 Annual Income [Rs.4,214x12] = Rs.50,568/-
3 Deduction 50% [Rs.50,568-25,284] = Rs.25,284/-
4 Future Prospects - 40% [Rs.25,284+10,114] = Rs.35,398/-
5 Multiplier - 18 [Rs.35,398x18] = Rs.6,37,164/-
6 Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
8 Loss of consortium
(i) Filial [Rs.48,000/-x2] = Rs.96,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.7,69,164/-
8. 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.
9. 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.
14.03.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
