Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gian Arora And Others vs Gulzar Singh And Others on 11 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150800
FAO-
FAO-5429-
5429-2004
2004 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
202
FAO-
FAO-5429-
5429-2004 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 11.11.2024
GIAN ARORA AND OTHERS
.....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GULZAR SINGH AND OTHERS
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY
SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: Mr. Mohit, Advocate for
Mr. Surinder Deswal Advocate
for the appellants.
None for the Respondents.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellants/ claimants
(hereinafter referred as 'claimants') in MACT Case No. 45 of 05.09.2001,
for modification of award dated 02.09.2004, passed by Ld. Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. Tribunal') by
seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, on account of death of
deceased -' Shyam Sunder Arora'.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 23.05.2001, Shyam
Sunder Arora (deceased) was driving a scooter No. HR-01-L/7089 and was
going towards railway station ,Ambala Cantt, alongwith his son Nitin Arora
pillion rider. When the scooter reached near the Samarat Vaishno Dhaba,
then the bus bearing registration No. HR-37/1440 came from the opposite
direction at fast speed being driven in rash and negligent manner by
respondent no.1 and hit against the scooter, resultantly the driver and pillion
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150800
FAO-
FAO-5429-
5429-2004
2004 (O&M) -2-
rider received injuries and deceased/driver succumbed to injuries.
Resultantly, FIR No.21, dated 24.05.2001, under Sections 279, 337, 304-A
IPC, at Police Station Parav, was registered against respondent No.1.
3. Appellants - Gian Arora (widow of deceased) and three children
namely - Preeti Arora, Nitin Arora, and Niraj Arora filed a claim petition
under Section 166 read with section 163-A, of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988,
for seeking compensation on account of death of 'Shyam Sunder Arora' in
the motor vehicular accident. However, after going through the record,
appreciating the evidence, examining the witnesses and hearing the
arguments of both the sides, Ld. Tribunal assessed the annual income of
deceased by taking into consideration the Income Tax Returns lastly filed by
the deceased for the year (1998-1999) (Ex.P-2) showing the annual income
as Rs.68,318/- per annum. Tribunal has deducted 2/3rd of the income of the
deceased on account of his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of
'12'. For Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/- has been granted and Rs.6000/- has
been granted towards medical expenses. Accordingly, claimants were
awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs.5,62,000/- and same is to be
divided in equal shares. Compensation amount is payable by all the
respondents severally and jointly with interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition till its realization.
Applicants/claimants have filed the present appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation, over and above the amount awarded by Ld.
Tribunal.
4. While addressing arguments, counsel for the appellants submits
that the Ld. Tribunal has erred in determining the annual income of the
deceased -Shyam Sunder Arora by considering Income Tax Returns of year
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150800
FAO-
FAO-5429-
5429-2004
2004 (O&M) -3-
1998-1999 and not of the last paid ITR for year 2001-2002. Therefore his
annual income should be taken as Rs.83,980/- as per last paid ITR. The Ld.
Tribunal has also erred by applying incorrect multiplier and has deducted
personal expenses on the higher side. It has also failed to consider the
income on account of future prospects and has not even granted
compensation on account of loss of consortium and loss of estate etc.
5. Apart from hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court
has gone through the impugned award and the calculations mentioned
therein.
No doubt that in a situation where the different Courts at
different times were at diversions in their opinion and in the absence of any
clarification by the law makers despite recommendations by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, all the major issues were referred to the larger Bench, and
accordingly, Constitution Bench was constituted in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009 :
Law finder Doc Id #918174. Thus, for the purpose of reaching out to
appropriate amount of compensation for adjudging the rights of the
claimants, guidelines laid down in the judgment of the Constitution Bench in
Pranay Sethi's case (supra), would help the Courts.
6. To prove the annual income of deceased the claimants have
brought on records the Income Tax Returns for years 1997-1998,1998-1999
and 2001-2002 (Ex.P1 to Ex.P3). However, the accident occurred on
23.05.2001, and claimants were required to produce the Income Tax Returns
for the immediate preceding years but the said returns were not produced
before the court rather returns for the year 2001-2002 was produced which
was infact, filed in the Income Tax Department after the death of deceased.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150800
FAO-
FAO-5429-
5429-2004
2004 (O&M) -4-
Hence the court is in consonance with the tribunal considering last filed ITR
by the deceased for year 1998-1999 where the annual Income of the
deceased was taken as Rs.68,320/-i.e Rs.5,693/- p.m. Therefore, the income
of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 5,700/- per month (rounded off).
7. From the evidence on record, it stands established that the
deceased was aged about 48 years and as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra),
addition of 25%, on the count of 'future prospects' has to be made and total
amount of earnings comes to be Rs.5,700/- + Rs.1,425/- (25% of Rs.5,700/-)
= Rs.7,125/- per month.
8. Out of the same, keeping in view the number of dependents i.e.
widow and three children 1/4th is to be deducted on account of 'personal
expenses', which is to the extent of Rs.1781.25/- and the residue amount
works out to be Rs.5343.75/- per month and annually which comes out to be
Rs.64,125/-. Considering the age of the deceased as 48 years, as per Smt.
Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC
121, the multiplier of '13' is applied and after, so applying this multiplier,
the loss of dependency comes to be Rs.64,125/- x 13 = Rs.8,33,625/-.
9. Rest of the parameters are assessed and calculated in
accordance with the judgment of this Court titled as Sangtari Muleem v.
Karnail Singh, (FAO No. 2538 of 2006, D/d. 07.07.2023) : Law Finder
Doc Id # 2270482, which is in consonance with the settled proposition of
law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), and Smt.
Sarla Verma's case (supra) and Smt. Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod
and Others, 2023 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 229 : Law Finder Doc Id #2081014.
Claimants are entitled for Rs.25,000/- as compensation under
the head of funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate. Loss of
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150800
FAO-
FAO-5429-
5429-2004
2004 (O&M) -5-
consortium is to be awarded to the tune of Rs.48,400/- each, to the all the
claimants in the instant appeal.
10. For the sake of convenience, amount of compensation assessed
and calculated by this Court is produced below in a tabular form:-
Sr. Head Compensation
Compen sation Compensation
No. awarded by the awarded by the High
Ld. Tribunal Court
1 Income Rs.5.693/- p.m. Rs.5,700/- p.m.
2 Future NIL Rs.7,125 (25% of
Prospects Rs.5,700 = Rs.1,425)
3 Deduction 2/3 1/4 (7125/4 = Rs.
towards 1,781.25)
personal
expenses
4 Total annual Rs.68,318/- Rs.64,125
income (5343.75 x 12)
6 Loss of Rs.5,46,000/- Rs.8,33,625/-
Dependency
7 Funeral Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/-
Expenses
8 Medical Rs.6,000/-
Expenses
9 Loss of Estate NIL Rs.25,000/-
10 Loss of NIL Rs.48,400/-
Spousal
Consortium
11 Loss of NIL Rs.1,45,200/-(48,400 x
Parental 3)
Consortium
12 Loss of Filial NIL NIL
Consortium to
parents
13 Total Rs.5,62,000/- Rs.10,72,000/-
Compensation (rounded off
to be paid Rs.10,72,225/-)
11. Thus, keeping in view the aims and objects of the beneficial
legislation of providing relief to the victims or their families, the total
compensation payable to the appellants (petitioners/claimants) is enhanced
to Rs.10,72,000/- (Rs. Ten Lacs and Seventy Two Thousands only) as
against Rs.5,62,000/-.
The awarded compensation shall be paid to the appellants
(petitioners/claimants) within a period of three months from the date of this
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150800
FAO-
FAO-5429-
5429-2004
2004 (O&M) -6-
order, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till the date of payment of compensation to the appellants
(petitioners/claimants), with the same terms, which have been mentioned by
Ld. Tribunal.
It is further clarified that in case compensation amount is not
paid within above mentioned stipulated period, rate of interest would be 9%
per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization.
And, in case any further delay is caused beyond six months
from today, compensation amount would be payable along-with interest at
rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual
realization.
12. Needless to mention that out of the total payable compensation
amount, already paid amount (if any) in compliance to the impugned award
would be adjusted.
13. Therefore, by partly modifying the award, appeal is allowed
with the terms indicated here-above.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
November 11, 2024 JUDGE
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
