Punjab-Haryana High Court
Taro Devi vs Sumer Chand And Ors on 14 November, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148976
FAO-4145-2010 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(213)
FAO-4145-2010 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 14.11.2024
Taro Devi
...Appellant
Versus
Sumer Chand and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. The injured has filed the present appeal for enhancement. The
only question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to what
amount of compensation the appellant-claimant is entitled to.
2. The fact that the appellant suffered injuries in a road accident
that took place on 10.05.2007 in which the offending motorcycle which was
driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by
respondent No.3, was involved is not in dispute.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has submitted that
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148976
FAO-4145-2010 (O&M) -2-
the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the loss of income of the
present appellant. It is further submitted that although the present appellant
was a house wife, but in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and others Vs. National Insurance
Company Limited and others, decided on 18.06.2020, along with another
connected matter, reported as 2020(7) SCC 256 even a house wife would
be considered to have notional income and in the said case the notional
income which was fixed for the deceased was Rs.5,000/- per month with
respect the accident which had taken place on 25.12.2012. It is prayed that
in the present case, the loss of income should be assessed as Rs.5,000/- per
month and on the additional amount the interest @ 9% per annum be also
granted.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company, on the other hand, has submitted that the judgment cited by the
learned counsel for the appellant does not fully support the case of the
appellant, inasmuch as, the said case pertained to a house wife, who had
died, whereas, in the present case, the appellant is living, although, she is
stated to have suffered permanent disability. It is further submitted that in
the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the accident had taken place on
25.12.2012, whereas, in the present case the accident had taken place on
10.05.2007. It is submitted that a perusal of para 2 of the award of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal would show that even as per the case of
the appellant, it was stated that she was earning Rs.3000/- per month, thus,
it does not lie in the mouth of the present appellant to state that she was
earning more than Rs.3000/- per month or that her notional income should
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148976
FAO-4145-2010 (O&M) -3-
be assessed as Rs.5,000/- per month. It is stated that the rate of interest
which is sought to be applied by the appellant is highly excessive and at
best the interest that can be awarded on the additional compensation should
be 6% per annum.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, in rebuttal, has submitted
that in the above-said judgment, in paragraph 9, the case Lata Wadhwa Vs.
State of Bihar, reported as (2001) 8 SCC 197 was considered and in the
said case the notional income was assessed as Rs.36,000/- per annum of a
house wife and the said SLP was decided in the year 2001 and thus, the
accident in the said case was much prior to the accident in the present case
i.e. 10.05.2007. It is further submitted that in the said circumstances, atleast
the notional income of the present appellant should be taken to be
Rs.3,000/- per month and since the present appellant has permanent
disability to the extent of 70% due to amputation of her left leg from its
middle as is apparent from the disability certificate (Ex.P1) and she was
stated to be 40 years of age as per the said disability certificate, thus, the
total amount on account of loss of income would come to Rs.3,78,000/- i.e.
(Rs.2100) (3000 x 70% permanent disability) x 15 x 12_- = Rs.3,78,000/-.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
gone through the paperbook.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh
and others (supra) had relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra) in which it has been observed
that a house wife renders multifarious services and even on a modest
estimation, her income should be assessed as Rs.36,000/- per annum i.e.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148976
FAO-4145-2010 (O&M) -4-
Rs.3,000/- per month. The age group which was considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the said judgment was 34 to 59. Admittedly, the present
appellant is in the said age group and the judgment in the case of Lata
Wadhawa was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2001
which was much prior to the date of accident in the present case i.e.
10.05.2007. In the said circumstances, the plea raised by the counsel for the
appellant to the effect that the notional income of the present appellant
should be treated as atleast Rs.3,000/- per month on account of her own
statement that she was earning Rs.36,000/- per annum deserves to be
accepted and accordingly, income of the present appellant is taken to be
Rs.3,000/- per month. Since there is 70% permanent disability, the notional
income per month would be taken as 2100/- per month. The multiplier
which would be applicable in the present case would be '15' as the age of
the present appellant as per the disability certificate is stated to be 40 years
and the same would be required to be multiplied by '12', thus, the total
amount on account of loss of income would come to Rs.3,78,000/-. On the
aspect of interest, it would be relevant to mention that this Court has
repeatedly deemed it fit to award interest @ 7.5% per annum and is of the
opinion that even in the present case, the said rate of interest would be
appropriate.
8. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the
present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award dated 19.08.2009
is modified and respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to pay an
additional amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,78,000/- to the
appellant/claimant along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148976
FAO-4145-2010 (O&M) -5-
the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment within
a period of six weeks from today.
November 14, 2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
naresh.k JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
Whether reportable:- Yes
5 of 5
