Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish & Ors vs Vinod Kumar & Ors on 5 November, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -1-
204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO
FAO-2864-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 05.11.2024
Jagdish & Another ....Appellants
VERSUS
Vinod Kumar & others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for the appellants
appellants.
Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for respondent No. 3 - Ins. Co.
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA,
SHARMA J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellantss for
enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Sirsa (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.12.2005 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
198 , whereby the claimant
claimants/appellant
/appellants
were awarded a compensation of Rs.55,000/
Rs. /- alongwith interest @ 7.5%
% per
annum.
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12
12.10.2004
.10.2004 at about 5.30 PM, Ratti
Ram (since deceased)
ceased) was standing outside the gate of his house, situated in Ward
No.11, Ellenabad District Sirsa, when the respondent No.1 - Vinod Kumar reached
there while driving a motor-cycle
motor No.RJ-31/2-M/6371
M/6371 rashly and negligently and
at a very high speed and dashed
das the motor-cycle
cycle against Ratti Ram, as a result
thereof, Ratti Ram fell on the ground and sustained multiple serious and grievous
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -2-
injuries on various parts of his body. The respondent No.1 ran away from the spot
immediately after causing the accident. Ratti Ram was taken to Sidhu Nursing
Home, Sirsa, where he was given first aid but due to his serious condition, he was
referred to Neuro Surgeon at Hisar but he succumbed to the injuries in the way.
The deceased was an agriculturist having 12 acres of agricultural land
at Villagee Berwal Khurd Tehsil Ellenabad. He himself was cultivating and
managing the same and thus was earning a sum of Rs.6000/
Rs.6000/- per month.
The appellants are the earning sons of the deceased and they being
legal representatives of the deceased had filed the claim petition.
3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied
the factum of accident/compensation.
acci
4. From the pleadings
pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following
issues:-
1. Whether the accident in question was caused by
respondent No.1 while driving a Motor Cycle No.RJ
No.RJ-31/2
31/2-
M/6371 rashly and negligently resulting into the death of Ratti
Ram as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any
compensation amount? If so how much and from whom?OPP
3. Whether the petition is not maint
maintainable
ainable in the present
form? OPR
4. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the
present petition? OPR
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -3-
5. Whether the petitioners have no locus
locus-standi
standi to file the
present petition? OPR
6. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence to drive a motor-cycle
cycle at the time of
the accident? If so to what effect? OPR
7. Releif.
5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on
record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.55,000
55,000/-
alongwith
with interest @ 7.5% per annum.. Hence the claimants/appellants filed the
present appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
6. The learned counsel
counsel for the claimants
claimants-appellants contend that only
Rs.55,000/- has been awarded under the head of no fault liability and the rest of the
claim has been declined by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the deceased
was 70 years old and have major sons.
7. Per contra, learned for the respondent
respondent-Insurance Company argues that
the learned Tribunal vide award dated 07.12.2005 has rightly assessed the amount
of compensation. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants
appellants-claimants
claimants has relied upon
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Birender and Others [2020 ACJ 759] to contend that even major married and
earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have right to apply to
compensation in case of accidental death. Relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced herein:-
herein:
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -4-
"14
14. The legal representatives of th
thee deceased could move
application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1).
166(1)
The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant
on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression
"legal representative" of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri
Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to pay compensation under
the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the
concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression "legal
representative" has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri
Bera (supra), the Court observed thus: "9. In terms of clause (c) of
sub
subsection (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of
the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to
compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim
petition. The
T proviso to said sub section makes the position clear that
where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application
can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by
impleading those legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the
High Court was justified in its view that the appellant could maintain
a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act.
10. .....The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine
the amount of compensation which is just and proper and
specify the person or persons to whom such compensation
would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of
compensation by a person who claims for the same.
11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal representative"
means a person who in law represents the estate of a de ceased
person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the
estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in
i a
representative character the person on whom the estate
devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in
similar terms is the definition of legal representa tive under
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -5-
the Arbitration andd Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. un der Section
2(1)(g).
12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of
BANCO National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique [1989 Supp
(2) SCC 275 the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is
inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to
legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a person who may or
may not be legal heir competent to inherit the prop erty of the
deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It
includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even
without title either as executors or adminis trators in
n possession
of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered
by the expression "legal represen tative". As observed
in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatb hai [(1987) 3 SCC
234 a legal representative
epresentative is one who suf fers on account of
death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not
necessarily be a wife, husband, par ent and child." In
paragraph 15 of the said decision
decision, while adverting to the
provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court observed that
even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a
legal representative, will be entitled to compensation
compensation.. In the
concurring judgment of Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His Lordship
then was, it is observed that there is distinction between "right
to apply for compensation" and "entitlement to compensation".
The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the dec
deceased.
eased.
As a result, the legal representative of the deceased would
inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case
case,, the Court was dealing
with the case of a married
rried daughter of the deceased and the
efficacy of Section 140 of the Act. Nevertheless, the principle
underlying the exposition in this decision would clearly come to
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -6-
the aid of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) even though
they are major sons of the deceased and also earning
earning.
15.. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the
deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it
must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons
of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for
compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to
consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the
concerned legal representative
representative was fully dependant on the deceased
and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The
evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the
claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis
and were earning meager income between ₹ 1,00,000/- and
₹1,50,000/ per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on
₹1,50,000/-
the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who
met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.
16.. The next issue is about the ded
deduction
uction of the amount receivable
by the legal representatives of the deceased under the 2006 Rules
from the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal in terms of
the decision of three-Judge
three Judge Bench of this Court in Shashi Sharma
(supra). This Court, after
after analysing the relevant rules, opined as
follows:
follows:-
23. Reverting back to Rule 5, sub
sub-rule
rule (1) provides for the
period during which the dependants of the deceased employee
may receive financial assistance equivalent to the pay and other
allowances that was last drawn by the deceased employee in
the normal course
ourse without raising a specific claim. Sub
Sub-rule
rule (2)
provides that the family shall be eligible to receive family
pension as per the normal Rules only after the period during
which they would receive the financial assistance in terms of
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -7-
sub-rule (1). Sub-rule
ule (3) guarantees the family of a deceased
government employee of a government residence in occupation
for a period of one year from the date of death of the employee,
upon payment of normal rent/licence fee. By virtue of sub
sub-rule
rule
(4), an ex gratia assistance
ance of 25,000 is provided to the family
of the deceased employee to meet the immediate needs on the
loss of the bread earner. Sub
Sub-rule
rule (5) clarifies that house rent
allowance shall not be a part of allowance for the purposes of
calculation of assistance.
24. .....As regards the second part, it deals with income from
other source which any way is receivable by the dependants of
the deceased government employee. That cannot be deducted
from the claim amount for determination of a just compensation
under the 1988 Act.
25. The claimants are legitimately entitled to claim for the loss
of "pay and wages" of the deceased government employee
againtitled to claim for the loss of pay and was the case may be,
covered by the first part of Rule 5 under the 1988 Act. The
claimants or dependants of the deceased government employee
(employed by the State of Haryana), however, cannot set up a
claim for the same subject falling under the first part of Rule 5-
"pay and allowances", which are receivable by them from
employer (the
he State) under Rule 5(1) of the 2006 Rules. In that,
if the deceased employee was to survive the motor accident
injury, he would have remained in employment and earned his
regular pay and allowances. Any other interpretation of the
said Rules would inevitably
ably result in double payment towards
the same head of loss of "pay and wages" of the deceased
government employee entailing in grant of bonanza, largesse or
source of profit to the dependants/claimants.....
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -8-
26.. Indeed, similar statutory exclusion of claim receivable
under the 2006 Rules is absent. That, however, does not mean
that the Claims Tribunal should remain oblivious to the fact
that the claim towards loss of pay and wages of the deceased
has already been or will be compensated by the employer in the
th
form of ex gratia financial assistance on compassionate
grounds under Rule 5(1). The Claims Tribunal has to
adjudicate the claim and determine the amount of
compensation which appears to it to be just. The amount
receivable by the dependants/claimants to
towards
wards the head of
"pay and allowances" in the form of ex gratia financial
assistance, therefore, cannot be paid for the second time to the
claimants. True it is, that the 2006 Rules would come into play
if the government employee dies in harness even due tto
o natural
death. At the same time, the 2006 Rules do not expressly enable
the dependants of the deceased government employee to claim
similar amount from the tortfeasor or insurance company
because of the accidental death of the deceased government
employee.
e. The harmonious approach for determining a just
compensation payable under the 1988 Act, therefore, is to
exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependants of
the deceased government employee under the 2006 Rules
towards the head financial assi
assistance
stance equivalent to "pay and
other allowances" that was last drawn by the deceased
government employee in the normal course. This is not to say
that the amount or payment receivable by the dependants of the
deceased government employee under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, is
the total entitlement under the head of "loss of income". So far
as the claim towards loss of future escalation of income and
other benefits is concerned, if the deceased government
employee had survived the accident can still be pursued by
them
hem in their claim under the 1988 Act. For, it is not covered by
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -9-
the 2006 Rules. Similarly, other benefits extended to the
dependants of the deceased government employee in terms of
sub-rule (2) to sub-rule
rule (5) of Rule 5 including family pension,
life insurance,
rance, provident fund, etc., that must remain unaffected
and cannot be allowed to be deducted, which, any way would
be paid to the dependants of the deceased government
employee, applying the principle expounded in Helen C.
Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC, 199
1998(4)
8(4) RCR (Civil) 177:
(1999) 1 SCC 90 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Patricia Jean Mahajan, 2002(3) RCR (Civil) 534 : (2002) 6
SCC 281 cases.
27.. A priori, the appellants must succeed only to the extent of
amount receivable by the dependants of the deceased
government employee in terms of Rule 5(1) of the 2006 Rules,
towards financial assistance equivalent to the loss of pay and
wages of the deceased employee for the period specified."
(emphasis supplied)
The learned Judge of the High Court has, however, after adverting to
the decision of the same High Court in Ajmero (supra), went on to
observe that 50% of the amount receivable by the legal
representatives of the deceased towards financial assistance under the
2006 Rules is required to be deducte
deducted
d from the compensation amount.
In the relied upon decision, the same learned Judge had occasion to
observe as follows:-
follows:
"... However, perusal of the judgment would reveal that the
Court has not adverted to the issue that had the Rules of 2006
extending assistance
sistance to family of a deceased employee been not
in existence, family would have been entitled to pension to the
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -10-
extent of 50% of the last drawn pay. As per the settled position
in law, the pensionary benefits available to family of a deceased
employee are
re not amenable for deduction for computing loss of
dependency. There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact
that in addition to compassionate assistance under the Rules,
family of the deceased is being paid pension till the age of
superannuation. Rather
her Rule 5(2) of the 2006 Rules specifically
denies family pension as per normal rules..."
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case.
case
10. A perusal of the award indicates that the age of the deceased
d at the
time of accident was 70 years, therefore, the future prospects in this case would not
be applicable. Further, deduction towards personal expenses is taken to be 1/3rd.
Under the prevailing facts and the circumstances of the present case, income of the
deceased is assessed as Rs.2500/-
Rs.2500/ per month in accordance with the minimum
wages prescribed for unskilled worker in the State of Haryana.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121]
121],, laid
down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same
are as under:-
"30
30.. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards
personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units
personal
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -11-
indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply
standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent
decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased
was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased, should be one-third
one third (1/3rd) where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3, one
one-fourth
fourth (1/4th) where the
number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one
one-fifth
fifth (1/5th)
(1/5th
where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
31.. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the
parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to
bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living
expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend
expenses,
more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his
getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the
parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastica
drastically.
lly. Further, subject
to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income
and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will
be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, brothers and sisters
sisters will not be considered as dependants,
because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or
be dependent on the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings,
only d the mother would be considered to be a depend
dependant,
ant, and 50%
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -12-
would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor
and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family
of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased,
as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of
younger non-earning
non earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one-third
one third and contribution to the family
will be taken as two-third.
two
* * * * * *
42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as
mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying
Susamma Thomas³, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with
an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 an
and
d 21 to
25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M
M-17
17 for 26
to 30 years, M-16
M 16 for 31 to 35 years, M
M-15
15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14
M
for 41 to 45 years, and M-13
M 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two
units for every five years, that is, M
M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9
9 for 56
to 60 years, M-7
M 7 for 61 to 65 years and M
M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the law under
Sections 166,
66, 163-A
163 A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following
aspects:-
(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine
multiplicand;
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -13-
(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased;
(C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier;
(D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation;
(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different
ages: with permanent job; self-employed
self employed or fixe
fixed salary.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:
under:-
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find
it difficult to agree with the view expresse
expressed
d in Rajesh². It has
granted Rs.25,000
25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000
towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of
care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss
of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers
to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The
conventionall and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be
determined on percentage basis because that would not be an
acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said
heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a
reasonable foundation.. There can be no dispute over the fact
that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in
many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain
oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this
aspect. Otherwise, there will be ext
extreme
reme difficulty in
determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied,
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -14-
there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency
as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals
and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore,, we think it
seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable
figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000,
Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of
revisiting
ng the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the
revisit should not be fact-centric
centric or quantum
quantum-centric.
centric. We think
that it would be condign that the amount that we have
quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every
three years and the enhancement
ncement should be at the rate of 10%
in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because
that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.
* * * * *
59.3.. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income
me of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should
be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years.
In case the deceased was between the aage
ge of 50 to 60 years, the
addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as
actual salary less tax.
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -15-
59.4.. In case the deceased was self
self-employed
employed (or) on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be
the warrant where the deceased
eased was below the age of 40 years.
An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of
40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the
age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary
method of computation. The established inc
income
ome means the
income minus the tax component.
59.5.. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for
personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall
be guided byy paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have
reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 42 of that judgment.
59.7.. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying
the multiplier.
59.8.. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs
15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid
amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three
years."
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance
nsurance Company Limited
Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &
Others [2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -16-
Pranayy Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant
paras of the same are reproduced as under:
under:-
"21.. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi² dealt
with the various heads under which compensation is to be
awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of
consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious
term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental
consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium
would include the
he company, care, help, comfort, guidance,
solace and affection of the deceased,
eceased, which is a loss to his
family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual
xual
relations with the deceased spouse
spouse.
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband
husband-wife
wife which allows
compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company,
society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation".
21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the
premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training".
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An
accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -17-
agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest
agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship
and their role in the family unit.
22.. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms
about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world-over
over have recognised that the value of a
child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the
compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most
jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under losss of consortium on the death of a child.
The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss
of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased
child.
23.. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of
genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor
child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to
be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial
consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who
lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A
few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count.
However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -18-
which compensation could be awarded on loss ooff filial
consortium.
24.. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium
will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation
under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi². In the
present case, we deem it appropriate to award the ffather
ather and
the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each
h for loss
of filial consortium.
CONCLUSION
14. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award dated
07.12.2005 is modified accordingly. The appellants
appellants-claimants
claimants are entitled to
enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here
here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.2,500/-
2 Deduction towards personal Rs.833/- [1/3 of 2500]
expenditure
3 Total Income Rs.1667/- (2500-833)
5 Annual Dependency Rs.1,00,020/- (1667 x 12 x 5)
6 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
7 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-
8 Loss of Consortium Rs.96,000/-
Parental : Rs.48,000/-
Rs.48 x2
Total Compensation Rs.2.32,020/-
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.55,000/-
FAO-2864-2006
2006 (O&M) -19-
Enhanced amount Rs.1,77,020/- (rounded off
to Rs.1,77,000/-
15. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176
and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5
Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants-claimants
claimants are granted the interest @
9% per annum on the enhanced amount from
from the date of filing of claim petition till
the date of its realization.
realization
16. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation alongwith
alongwith interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of certified
certified copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is further
directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in
the accounts of both the claimants/appellants as per ratio settled in the award dated
07.12.2005.. The claimants/appellants are directed to furnish the
their bank account
details to the Tribunal.
17. Disposed of accordingly.
18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
November 5,, 2024 (SUDEEPTI
SUDEEPTI SHARMA
SHARMA)
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
es/No
