Punjab-Haryana High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Anita Narula W/O Anil Kumar And Others on 14 March, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:037259
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
548 FAO No.1170 of 2011
Date of Decision : 14.03.2024
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Appellant
VERSUS
Anita Narula and Others ....Respondents
548-1 FAO No.3172 of 2011
Anita Narula ....Appellant
VERSUS
Gurpreet Singh and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate
for the appellant-Insurance Company in FAO-1170-2011 and
for respondent No.4-Insurance Company in FAO-3172-2011.
Mr. Pragun Jasuja, Advocate for
Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate
for the appellant in FAO-3172-2011 and
for respondent No.1 in FAO-1170-2011.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. This common order will dispose off both the above captioned
appeals being FAO-1170-2011 filed by the Insurance Company and FAO-
3172-2011 filed by the claimant challenging the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide award dated 16.11.2010.
integrity of this order/judgment
FAO No.1170 of 2011 -2- 2024:PHHC:037259
2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by
the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being adverted to for the
sake of brevity.
3. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation :
Sr.No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly income Rs.19,500/-
2 Annual income [Rs.19,500 x 12] = Rs.2,34,000/-
3 Deduction - 1/3rd [Rs.2,34,000 - 78,000] = Rs.1,56,000/-
4 Multiplier - 13 [Rs.1,56,000 x 13] = Rs.20,28,000/-
5 Last Rites Rs.6,000/-
6 Loss of Estate Rs.4,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.20,38,000/-
Interest 8% per annum
4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that
the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.20,38,000/-, which is highly
excessive and not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. It is further the contention that the deceased in the present
case was a bachelor and his mother is the only claimant. The Tribunal has
erred in applying a deduction of 1/3rd which ought to have been 50%.
5. Learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the
income of the deceased is not in dispute, however, the Tribunal has not made
any addition towards loss of future prospects and keeping in view the age of
the deceased, who was 25 years of age, 40% addition ought to have been
made towards loss of future prospects. Further, a multiplier of 13 has been
applied by the Tribunal keeping in view the age of mother of the deceased,
however, the same ought to have been 18 keeping in view the age of the
integrity of this order/judgment
FAO No.1170 of 2011 -3- 2024:PHHC:037259
deceased. It has further been contended that the amount awarded under the
conventional heads is also not in accordance with the law and that no
amount has been awarded under the head 'loss of consortium'. In support of
his contention the learned counsel for the claimant has relied upon the
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
Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs.
Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR
(Civil) 642].
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company
that the amount of compensation is in excess deserves to be rejected
inasmuch as the amount awarded is actually on the lower side and not in
accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
above referred judgments.
8. In the present case the income of the deceased is not in dispute.
The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.19,500/- per
month on the basis of the evidence. However, the Tribunal has applied a
deduction of 1/3rd which ought to have been 50% keeping in view the fact
that the deceased was a bachelor and was survived by his mother, who is the
only claimant in the present case. Further, the Tribunal has not made any
addition towards loss of future prospects which, keeping in view the age of
integrity of this order/judgment
FAO No.1170 of 2011 -4- 2024:PHHC:037259
the deceased who was 25 years of age, ought to have been 40%. The
Tribunal has also erred in applying a multiplier of 13 keeping in view the
age of the mother of the deceased whereas a multiplier of 18 would be
applicable keeping in view the age of the deceased. Further, the amount
awarded under the conventional head is not in accordance with the law and
that no amount has been awarded under the head 'loss of consortium' 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 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 would
also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- towards loss of filial consortium.
9. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income Rs.19,500/-
2 Annual Income [Rs.19,500 x 12] = Rs.2,34,000/-
3 Deduction - 50% [Rs.2,34,000 - 1,17,000] = Rs.1,17,000/-
4 Future Prospects - 40% [Rs.1,17,000 + 46,800] = Rs.1,63,800/-
5 Multiplier - 18 [Rs.1,63,800 x 18] = Rs.29,48,400/-
6 Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
8 Loss of consortium
(i) Filial [Rs.48,000
Total Rs.30,32,400/-
10. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount
awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 8% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.
integrity of this order/judgment
FAO No.1170 of 2011 -5- 2024:PHHC:037259
11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal being FAO-1170-
2011 filed by the Insurance Company and the appeal being FAO-3172-2011
filed by the claimant are partly allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is
modified accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
14.03.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment
