Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt.Maya Devi And Ors vs Rohtash And Ors on 6 May, 2024
Author: Archana Puri
Bench: Archana Puri
2024:PHHC:062701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-1856-1998 (O&M)
Date of Decision: May 06, 2024
Smt.Maya Devi and others
...Appellants
VERSUS
Rohtash and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present: Mr.K.S.Pawar, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.V. Ramswaroop, Advocate
for respondent No.6-insurance company.
****
ARCHANA PURI, J.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants,
thereby, questioning the adequacy of the compensation awarded by learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on account of death of Piare Lal, in a
motor vehicular accident, which took place on 09.12.1995.
Vide impugned Award dated 16.03.1998, learned Tribunal had
decided three claim petitions, arising from the same accident.
The facts germane, to be noticed, are as follows:-
That, on 09.12.1995, an accident took place on National Highway
near Parphati factory, within jurisdiction of Police Station Bilaspur, in
which, Rajesh Khanna aged 15 years, Piare Lal aged 20 years and Rajinder
2024:PHHC:062701
FAO-1856-1998 -2-
Singh received injuries. The victims were going in truck bearing registration
No.HR-38-7968 to attend rally of Chaudhary Bansi Lal at village Manesar.
When the said truck reached near Parphati factory, a small bodied truck was
going ahead of the said truck. When the driver of the truck bearing
registration No.HR-38-7968 tried to overtake the said small bodied truck, in
that process, the offending tralla bearing registration no.HR-38A-1025, came
from the front side, driven in a rash and negligent manner. When both the
aforesaid truck and tralla were crossing each other, the back portion of truck
struck the said tralla, as a result whereof, the truck turned turtle and
occupants of the truck sustained injuries. When Piare Lal was taken to
Pushpanjali Hospital, he was declared dead. It is specifically claimed that
the accident had taken place due to contributory rashness and negligence of
both the drivers of the truck and tralla i.e. respondent No.1-Rohtash and
respondent No.4-Nasruddin.
Claim petition bearing No.80 of 1996 titled 'Smt.Maya Devi
and others vs. Rohtash and others' was filed by the widow, minor daughter
and parents of deceased Piare Lal.
Said Piare Lal was asserted to be 20 years old and student of ITI
College Faridabad. Besides the same, he was working as labourer and
earning Rs.1500/- per month.
On appraisal of the evidence, adduced on record, learned
Tribunal had considered the earnings of deceased Piare Lal as Rs.1500/- per
month, being labourer. After making deduction of 1/3rd, on account of
personal expenses, the loss of dependency was taken as Rs.1000/-.
Multiplier applied by learned Tribunal was '15' and considering the same,
2024:PHHC:062701
FAO-1856-1998 -3-
the compensation was worked upon Rs.1,80,000/-.
Also, it was concluded by learned Tribunal that accident had taken
place due to contributory negligence of both the drivers of truck bearing
registration HR-38-7968 and tralla bearing registration No.HR-38A-1025.
Both the drivers, owners and respective insurers of the offending vehicles,
were held, jointly and severally to pay the compensation.
At the very outset, be it noted that none of the respondents, who
were made liable, to pay the compensation, have filed any appeal, to assail
the findings on the said aspect. As such, this aspect, warrants no further
scrutiny. It is pertinent to mention that the appeal has been filed only by
appellants-claimants, for seeking enhancement of the compensation.
While making reference to the evidence adduced before learned
Tribunal, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the
compensation has been granted miserably on lower side, which calls for
extensive enhancement, on various counts, to which amiss has been given by
learned Tribunal.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company
resisted the claim of the appellants and he submits that just compensation
has been worked upon and thus, appeal should be dismissed.
However, as per prevalent law, the compensation, so worked
upon, as detailed aforesaid, do call for re-determination.
Even though, it is specific version of the appellants-claimants
about deceased Piare Lal to be student of ITI College, but however, no
satisfactory evidence, relating to this aspect, has come on record and in the
given circumstances, learned Tribunal has rightly not considered this status
2024:PHHC:062701
FAO-1856-1998 -4-
of the deceased. However, considering him to be a labourer, the amount of
the earnings of the deceased i.e. Rs.1500/- per month, taken by learned
Tribunal, is just and reasonable.
However, the deduction made by learned Tribunal, on the count of
'personal expenses' is on higher side. As per Sarla Verma's case, when the
dependents are between to 4-6 in number, the deduction, on the count of
'personal expenses' has to be 1/4th. The present appeal has been filed by
widow, minor daughter and parents of the deceased. Though, now it is
submitted that father of the deceased, as such, cannot be considered as
dependent, but aforesaid submission is not tenable.
The word 'dependent' has a different meaning in different
connotation. Some may be dependent in terms of money and other may be
dependent in terms of service. It does not mean financial dependency only.
Dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency,
emotional dependency, psychological dependency, and so on and so forth,
which can never be equated in terms of money. Reverting to the case in
hand, it is pertinent to mention that deceased was 20 years old, at the time of
accident. Even, assuming that appellant-claimant No.4, being father of the
deceased, may not be dependent financially, upon the deceased, but
however, at this age, father is definitely emotionally and psychologically
dependent upon his young child and also he has service dependency. In the
given circumstances, appellant-claimant No.4, ought not to be deprived of
the compensation, to be so worked upon.
Considering the aforesaid, the deduction has to be made to the
extent of 1/4th. Thus, making this deduction, the loss of dependency comes
2024:PHHC:062701
FAO-1856-1998 -5-
to be Rs.1500-375=Rs.1125/-.
Considering the age of the deceased to be 20 years, as per
Pranay Sethi's case, addition of 40% ought to be made, on the count of
'future prospects'. Making it to be so, the income of the deceased is worked
upon as Rs.1125+Rs.450(40%)=Rs.1575/-, annual whereof, comes to be
Rs.18,900/-.
Considering the age of the deceased, as per Sarla Verma's case,
appropriate and suitable multiplier, to be applied is '18' and by applying the
same, the loss of dependency, works out to be Rs.18900x18=Rs.3,40,200/-.
Besides the aforesaid, under the conventional heads, as per
Pranay Sethi's (supra), the compensation ought to be paid, on the count of
'loss of consortium', 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'. As per 'Magma
General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and
others, 2018 (18) SCC 130', whosoever are the dependents of the
deceased/claimants, are entitled to 'parental', 'spousal' or 'filial'
consortium, as required. In view of the same, appellants-claimants are
entitled to compensation, on the aforesaid counts.
As per Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the compensation payable,
with enhancement clause of 10%, after every three years of passing of the
judgment, on the count of 'loss of consortium' is to the extent of
Rs.48,400/-, to each of the claimants (i.e. Rs.48400x4=Rs.1,93,600/-) and on
the similar pattern, on the counts of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses',
the compensation payable, comes to be Rs.18,150/-, on each count.
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009
Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77
2024:PHHC:062701
FAO-1856-1998 -6-
Considering the same, the compensation payable to appellants-
claimants, on account of death of Piare Lal, is re-computed, as herein given:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.3,40,200/-
Loss of consortium : Rs.1,93,600/-
Loss of estate : Rs.18,150/-
Funeral expenses : Rs.18,150/-
Total : Rs.5,70,100/-
As such, the enhanced compensation, after the deduction of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to be Rs.5,70,100-
1,80,000=Rs.3,90,100/-. On the enhanced amount of the compensation i.e.
Rs.3,90,100/-, the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to the interest, at the
rate of 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the present appeal, till
realization of the enhanced amount of compensation.
Out of the compensation, as now enhanced, appellant-claimant
No.1-Smt.Maya Devi, is held entitled to Rs.1,90,100/-, appellant-claimant
No.2-Kumari Hemlata Devi is held entitled to Rs.1,00,000/-, whereas,
appellants-claimants No.3 and 4 i.e. Sh.Ram Pal and Smt.Jeeto Devi, are
held entitled to Rs.50,000/- each.
In view of the aforesaid terms, the present appeal stands
allowed.
May 06, 2024 (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
