Punjab-Haryana High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd vs Neelam Rani And Others on 20 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-4396-2019 (O&M) and 1 2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-3043-2021 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. FAO- 4396-2019 (O&M)
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Neelam Rani and others
...Respondents
2. FAO- 3043-2021 (O&M)
Pronounced on: 20.03.2024
Neelam Rani and others
...Appellants
Versus
Khosla Machines Pvt. Ltd. and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate with
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant (in FAO-4396-2019) and
for respondent No.2 (in FAO-3043-2021).
Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate
for the appellants (in FAO-3043-2021) and
for respondents No.1 to 3/claimants (in FAO-4396-2019).
Mr. D. K. Dogra, Advocate
for respondent No.1 (in FAO-3043-2021) and
for respondent No.4 (in FAO-4396-2019).
Mr. Amit Kundra, Advocate for
Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate
for respondent No.5 (ii) in FAO-4396-2019.
.
****
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2024 04:45:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-4396-2019 (O&M) and 2 2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-3043-2021 (O&M)
RITU TAGORE, J.
1. This common judgment shall dispose of above-captioned
appeals, arising out of the same award dated 30.03.2019 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as
'the Tribunal'), in a MACT Case No.209 of 2016, titled as 'Smt. Neelam
Rani and others Vs. Khosla Machines Pvt. Ltd. and others'.
2. For convenience, parties are referred to as per their status
before the learned Tribunal.
3. The Insurance Company is seeking reduction and
claimants are seeking enhancement in the awarded amount. Learned
counsel for the parties have agreed and consented to hear and decide the
appeals together.
4. Relevant facts for adjudication of these appeals are as
under:
On 27.03.2016 at about 3:15 am, after attending Ladies
Sangeet ceremony of his friend-Sandeep, deceased Vipin Kumar
@ Lucky alongwith his friends was travelling in a car bearing
registration No.CH03J-0377 (the offending vehicle) driven by
Surinder @ Chhinda (since deceased). Vipin Kumar @ Lucky,
deceased was sitting on the front seat of the car. It is alleged
that due to high speed of the car, the driver lost control of the
vehicle and struck against the signal pole of light point near Kali
Bari, Sector 31/47 road within area of Police Station Sector 31,
Chandigarh. As a result, car overturned and occupants of the car
sustained injuries. Deceased- Vipin Kumar @ Lucky succumbed
to the injuries.
5. Regarding the accident, FIR bearing No.72, dated
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-4396-2019 (O&M) and 3 2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-3043-2021 (O&M)
28.02.2016 under Sections 279/337, 304-A of IPC was registered at
Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh.
6. According to claimants (parents and unmarried sister),
deceased Vipin Kumar @ Lucky, was aged about 21 years at the time of
his death. He was matriculate and had done course of Web-Designing
from New Delhi and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing private
jobs/ assignment from various IT companies and was also offered a job
by Media Foster, A-87, Sector 4 Noida Branch (UP) vide contract letter
dated 10.01.2016 for a salary of Rs.25,000/- p.m. Apart from that,
deceased was also imparting tuition of basic computer skills to students
and was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. He was also earning Rs.10,000 p.m.
by doing repair of mobile phones and computers. It is claimed that
income of the deceased from all the sources was about Rs.40,000/- p.m.
7. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.50 lacs along with
interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realization.
8. Respondents (owner, Insurance Company, LRs of
deceased-driver, car dealer and subsequent purchaser) filed their
respective replies. Respondents No.1, 3 and 4, pleaded their no concern
with the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 pleaded that he had sold the
offending vehicle to Vineet Gupta and handed over the possession of the
vehicle in question along with all documents vide delivery letter dated
30.01.2016. It is also stated that vehicle in question was fully insured
with respondent No.2. LRs of respondent No.5 pleaded that vehicle in
question was being driven by deceased-Vipin @ Lucky in a rash and
negligent manner and the deceased (respondent No.5) was wrongly
impleaded as a driver of the car (offending vehicle).
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-4396-2019 (O&M) and 4 2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-3043-2021 (O&M)
9. Respondent No.2, the insurer, pleaded that driver
possessed no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident as
such vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of
the policy. On the above material grounds, a prayer was made to dismiss
the petition being meritless.
10. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were
framed by the Tribunal:-
"1. Whether accident resulting into death of Vipin Kumar @
Lucky s/o Sh.Shiv Kumar took place due to rash and negligent
driving of offending car bearing registration No.CH-03-J- 0377
make Honda Accord by respondent No.5 Surinder @ Chhinda,
since deceased? OPP
2. Whether claimants are entitled to compensation for death of
Vipin Kumar @ Lucky s/o Sh.Shiv Kumar due to the accident in
question, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
3. Whether respondent No.5 Surinder @ Chhinda on the date of
accident was not holding valid and effective driving license
and, therefore, the offending car was being driven in violation
of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, if so its effect?
OPR
4. Relief."
11. The parties presented their respective evidence as detailed
in the award. On the assessment of the evidence, learned Tribunal
answered issue No.1 in favour of claimants, observing that deceased-
Vipin Kumar @ Lucky died in accident caused by respondent No.1
while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. On
issue No.2, learned Tribunal in absence of reliable evidence regarding
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-4396-2019 (O&M) and 5 2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-3043-2021 (O&M)
the technical education qualification of the deceased and his claimed
income, treated him as a casual worker and determined his income at
Rs.8458/- per month on the basis of minimum wages, considering the
letter dated 17.05.2016 issued by Assistant Labour Commissioner, UT,
Chandigarh. By taking the deceased as self- employed and his age 21
years, added 40% on his income towards future prospects and deducted
1/3rd towards his personal expenses, and assessed total loss of
compensation Rs.17,05,140/-. Also, granted Rs.70,000/- compensation to
the claimants under different conventional heads. Interest 9% p.a was
also granted on the assessed amount from the date of filing of the
petition till realization, and made respondents No.1 and 2 (registered
owner and Insurance Company) jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation amount by exonerating the other respondents from their
liability. Issue No.3 was answered against the Insurance Company and
petition was allowed in the above terms while answering issue No.4
(relief) in favour of the claimants.
12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that
the learned Tribunal erred in taking minimum wages Rs.8,458/- per
month relying upon a letter issued by Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Union Territory, Chandigarh; whereas deceased was resident of Punjab
(SAS Nagar, Mohali). Minimum wages as applicable to State of Punjab
should have been taken. The prevalent minimum wages for the State of
Punjab for the year 2016 were Rs.7,210/- pm for an unskilled worker.
13. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further urged
that the learned Tribunal faulted in considering three persons as
dependents of deceased, despite the fact that deceased was a bachelor
and his father (claimant No.2) was working in a security agency. This
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-4396-2019 (O&M) and 6 2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-3043-2021 (O&M)
fact was admitted by Neelam Rani (PW-1) the mother of the deceased.
The learned counsel contended that in presence of father, an unmarried
sister cannot be taken as dependent of deceased. Similarly, father cannot
be treated as dependent of deceased. It is stated that as per normal rule
one half (1/2) is to be deducted from the income of a bachelor deceased
towards his self maintenance and personal expenses . The deduction of
1/3rd made by the learned Tribunal is against the principles culled out in
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others'
(2017) 16 SCC 680. It is also stated that grant of compensation under
the head of consortium is also flawed as deceased was an unmarried
individual. The grant of interest at @ 9% has also been assailed being
excessive. A prayer is therefore made to re-determine the compensation
amount.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants
submitted that learned Tribunal misdirected itself in ignoring the
contractual letter Ex.P-4 tendered on record and further same was not in
dispute by the respondents. It is also submitted that learned Tribunal
wrongly treated the deceased as a casual worker, whereas he was a
skilled person, having technical qualifications. His income should have
been taken at par with the skilled person. It is thus, stated that the
compensation needs to be re-assessed accordingly.
15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their valuable assistance.
16. There is no dispute regarding the death of deceased-Vipin
Kumar @ Lucky in a motor vehicular accident in question, caused by
Surinder @ Chhinda, since deceased (respondent No.5) while driving the
offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. No appeal or cross-
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-4396-2019 (O&M) and 7 2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-3043-2021 (O&M)
objections have been filed by the LRs of deceased Surinder @ Chhinda-
driver.
17. There is further no dispute regarding the age of the
deceased 21 years (date of birth 08.08.1995 as recorded in birth
certificate, Annexure P-8) and that he was unmarried at the time of his
death.
18. Claimants pleaded that deceased was a skilled person. He
was a web designer and had also gained technical knowledge of
repairing mobiles and computers and used to give tuition to students
regarding basic computer skills. To substantiate their version, claimant
have relied upon a contract letter dated 10.01.2016 (Ex.P-4) to show that
deceased was given a job offer by a company 'Media Foster', Noida
Branch (UP) for a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month . The learned Tribunal
rejected the version of the claimants with respect to the claimed income
of the deceased and also discarded the letter (Ex.P-4), concluding that
same was not duly proved by examining any official of the company or
leading any other evidence to establish the projected income of the
deceased.
19. Learned Tribunal further observed that claimants presented no
evidence on the educational or technical qualification except adducing
matriculation certificate (Ex.P-3) and self serving statement of the
mother (PW1) of the deceased to show that deceased was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month by doing private assignments of IT companies
and Rs 20,000 from repair of mobiles and computers, and had earning
Rs.40,000/- per month from all the sources.. The learned counsel for the
claimants failed to point out that any error in the inferences and
conclusions drawn by the learned Tribunal based on evidence on the
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-4396-2019 (O&M) and 8 2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-3043-2021 (O&M)
aforesaid issue. The learned counsel also failed to point out any evidence
was missed out or misread by the learned Tribunal while reaching at a
finding that deceased was matriculate only and did not have the claimed
technical educational or qualification in web designing or computer and
mobile repairing. The claimants thus, failed to show that deceased was a
skilled person. The learned Tribunal has rightly considered the deceased
as a casual worker.
20. Learned Tribunal relied upon letter dated 17.05.2016
issued by Assistant Labour Commissioner, UT, Chandigarh fixing
Minimum wages, for UT, Chandigarh, to consider the income of the
deceased on the scale of minimum wages. The grouse of the Insurance
Company is that minimum wages as prevalent in State of Punjab should
have been applied since deceased belonged to State of Punjab, SAS
Nagar (Mohali). According to the counsel for the Insurance Company,
minimum wages for a casual worker in State of Punjab for the year 2008
to 2016 were Rs.7,210.52/- p.m. and same should have been applied. To
my considered opinion, adoption of letter of the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, UT, Chandigarh by the learned Tribunal, for a resident of
SAS Mohali, is not an error. It is common knowledge that three cities
namely Mohali, Panchkula and Chandigarh are closely located with each
other and are known as 'Tricity'. The minimum wages as prevalent for
Chandigarh can be considered for a resident of Mohali being a part of a
Tricity. Therefore, adoption of a minimum wage at Rs.8,458/-p.m as
income of the deceased by the learned Tribunal is justified and is not
disturbed, same is taken as such.
21. The learned Tribunal made deduction of 1/3rd in the
income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, by treating all the
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-4396-2019 (O&M) and 9 2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-3043-2021 (O&M)
claimants as dependents on the deceased. It is admitted case that
deceased was a bachelor. Claimant-Neelam Rani (PW-1) admitted that
her husband claimant No.2 was working in a security agency. In view
thereof, father and unmarried sister during the lifetime of her father
cannot be treated as dependents of deceased. Only mother as claimant
can be treated as dependant. In National Insurance Company Limited
vs. Pranay Sethi and others' (2017) 16 SCC 680 it is held that in a case
of a bachelor, only mother can be taken as dependent upon the deceased
unless contrary evidence is led on record to establish that other
claimants are also dependents on the bachelor deceased. Normally, in
case of a bachelor deduction towards personal expenses is required to be
taken at 50% of his establish income. In present case, claimants led no
evidence to establish that father and unmarried sister were dependent on
the deceased.
22. In view of the evidences on record, it is held that learned
Tribunal committed mistake in deducting 1/3rd towards personal
expenses of the deceased by taking all the claimants as dependents upon
him by ignoring the admission of claimant-Neelam Rani (PW-1) that her
husband is an earning hand. The calculation, in given circumstances,
needs to be revised being against factual and legal position. The
compensation is re-determined as under:-
Name of the deceased -Vipin Kumar @ Lucky
Age - 21 years
Status - Unmarried
Amount given by learned MACT - Rs.17,75,140/-
along with 9% interest per annum
Reassessment of award amount
Sr. Heads Income (in Rupees)
No.
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-4396-2019 (O&M) and 10 2024:PHHC:040300
FAO-3043-2021 (O&M)
1. Income Rs.8,458/-
2. Future prospects 40% Rs.8,458 x40/100=Rs.3383/-
in view of Pranay Sethi (supra) (Rs.8458 + Rs.3383/-=11841)
3. Deduction ½ on self maintenance of Rs.11,841/2=Rs.5920.5/- rounded at
deceased Rs.5921/-
5. Total loss of dependency Rs.5920x12x8=Rs.1278936/-
6. Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
(10% increase in every three years in
view of Pranay Sethi (supra)
7. Loss of funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
(10% increase in every three years in
view of Pranay Sethi (supra)
8. Loss of filial consortium x 48,000 Rs.1,44,000/-
3claimants
(10% increase in every three years in
view of Pranay Sethi (supra)
9. Total Rs.14,58,936 /-
23. Accordingly, amount of compensation Rs.17,75,140/- awarded by the
learned Tribunal, is reduced to Rs.14,58,936/- alongwith interest as awarded by
the Tribunal, is payable to mother-claimant. Keeping in view rate of interest as
prevalent, grant of interest by the Tribunal does not seem to be on higher side.
Out of the assessed amount, Rs.48,000/- each shall be payable to claimants No.2
and 3.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, appeal of Insurance Company
bearing No.FAO-4396 of 2019 is allowed and that of claimants bearing No.FAO-
3043 of 2021 is dismissed.
25. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
(RITU TAGORE)
JUDGE
Pronounced on:20.03.2024
Rimpal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
10 of 10
