Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bitamee Devi @ Bidamee Devi And Another vs Babita Devi And Others on 20 March, 2024
2024:PHHC:040651
CM-5054-C-II-2024 in/and RA-CR-52-2024 in FAO-5656-2016 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.108
Case No. : CM-5054-C-II-2024 in/and
RA-CR-52-2024 in FAO-5656-2016
Date of Decision : March 20, 2024
Bitamee Devi @ Bidamee Devi and another .... Appellants
vs.
Babita Devi and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Amit Jaswal, Advocate
for the appellants.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. This Review Application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1
read with Section 114 and 151 CPC for review of judgment dated
24.07.2023 passed by this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants has submitted that
appeal was filed against Award dated 20.07.2016, primarily on the ground
that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as
- the Tribunal) did not grant any compensation to the applicants/appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants has further
submitted that the applicants/appellants are residents of Village Kaleera,
District Sikar, Rajasthan and had no knowledge of pendency of the claim
petition. This Court granted sum of Rs.38,48,637/- as compensation to all
the claimants but applicant/appellant no.1 Bitamee Devi @ Bidamee Devi
MONIKA was granted sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and applicant/appellant no.2 Narain
2024:PHHC:040651
CM-5054-C-II-2024 in/and RA-CR-52-2024 in FAO-5656-2016 -2-
Kumawat was granted sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. Respondents
no.1 and 2 have been granted a sum of Rs.33,48,637/-. It has further been
apprised to this Court that respondent no.1 is receiving pension from CRPF
after the death of her husband and has also received other retiral dues from
CRPF. Further, it has been argued that the applicants/appellants were not
properly served, so, they did not lead any evidence. The old parents are
always taken to be dependent upon the deceased. No consortium was
granted to the applicants/appellants. This Court wrongly made deduction of
15% towards contributory negligence from the total compensation whereas
the deduction should have been from the sum assessed under the head of
"loss of dependency". This is the further contention of learned counsel for
the applicants/appellants that at least one-third of the compensation should
have been awarded to the poor parents (applicants/appellants) of the
deceased.
4. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants/
appellants and have also gone through the record of the case.
5. A bare perusal of the record shows that widow and minor son of
the deceased moved petition for grant of compensation before the learned
Tribunal, Chandigarh, but parents of the deceased (applicants/appellants)
failed to appear despite service through registered post and hence, were
proceeded against ex-parte. The Award was passed only in favour of widow
and minor son of the deceased and nothing was granted to the parents of the
deceased as compensation.
6. Before this Court, parents filed appeal being FAO No. 5656 of
2016 and another appeal was filed by the widow and minor son of the
2024:PHHC:040651
CM-5054-C-II-2024 in/and RA-CR-52-2024 in FAO-5656-2016 -3-
deceased i.e. FAO No. 2183 of 2017. By a common judgment, both the
appeals have been disposed of by this Court. The relevant extract of the
judgment reads as under :-
15. Apart from what has been held in preceding
paragraphs, there is nothing on the file to show that the
deceased was not having any brother. So, it cannot be
said that parents of the deceased were fully dependent
upon the deceased. In the first appeal i.e. FAO
No.5656 of 2016, appellant no.1 is mother of the
deceased and it is duty of every son to support her
mother during her old age. In the absence of any
evidence, it cannot be said that she was fully dependent
upon the deceased. So, the parents are entitled to some
amount of compensation on account of death of their
son. Accordingly, the mode of compensation shall be
calculated as detailed below :-
No. Head Compensation
Awarded
01. Monthly Income Rs.21,853/-
02. 1/3rd Deduction Rs.7,284/-
03. Net Income Rs.14,568/-
04. Annual Income Rs.1,74,816/-
(14,568/- x 12)
(age of deceased = 28 yrs.)
06. Total Income Rs.29,71,872/-
(A) (1,74,816/- x 17)
07. Future Prospects Rs.14,85,936/-
@ 50% (B)
08. Total Income for Rs.44,57,808/-
computation (A+B)
09. Loss of Estate, Rs.70,000/-
Funeral, Consortium
10. Total Compensation Rs.45,27,808/-
11. 15% deduction Rs.6,79,171/-
for negligence
12. TOTAL Rs.38,48,637/-
7. The amount of compensation was enhanced. Mother of the
MONIKA deceased was granted a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and father of the deceased was
2024:PHHC:040651
CM-5054-C-II-2024 in/and RA-CR-52-2024 in FAO-5656-2016 -4-
granted Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, out of total amount of compensation.
Since the judgment has been passed keeping in view the fact that there was
no evidence on file to show that there was no other brother of the deceased
and parents of the deceased were fully dependent upon him. The judgment
was passed keeping in view the particular fact and therefore, the same
cannot be changed by way of review.
8. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present
Review Application, which is accordingly dismissed.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
March 20, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
