Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish Kumar And Anr vs Lilu Ram And Ors on 18 November, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150178
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
284 FAO-4685-2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 18.11.2024
Satish Kumar and Another ....Appellants
VERSUS
Lilu Ram and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide award dated
29.08.2014.
2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the
Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being adverted to for the sake of
brevity. The Tribunal in the present case awarded the following
compensation:
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly income Rs.19,400/-
2 Monthly income after Rs.11,700/-
40% deduction
3 Annual income after [Rs.11,700 x 17 x 12] = Rs.23,86,800/-
applying the multiplier
of 17
4 Transportation and Rs.25,000/-
Funeral expenses
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150178
5 Loss of Love and Rs.23,200/-
Affection consortium
Total Compensation Rs.24,35,000/-
Interest 8% per annum
3. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that
though the income of the deceased has rightly been assessed as Rs.19,440/-
per month and a multiplier of '17' has also correctly been applied, however,
an amount of 40% has wrongly been deducted towards personal expenses of
the deceased. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would further
contend that even the amounts awarded under the conventional heads and
under the head 'loss of consortium' are also not in accordance with law and
need to be re-worked out. It is further the contention that no addition has been
made towards loss of future prospects and an addition of 50% should be made
as the deceased was a Lecturer Guest Faculty and was posted at Government
Girls Senior Secondary School, village Imlota, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District
Bhiwani. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd.
vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance
Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18
SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General
Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642].
4. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company would contend that a deduction of 50% ought to be made as there
was only one dependent i.e. the minor daughter of the deceased and that the
husband, who was also one of the claimants, is a teacher and is earning
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150178
himself. It is further the contention that an addition of 40% is to be made
towards loss of future prospects as the deceased was not treated as a
permanent lecturer and no amount was awarded to the family under the
Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased
Government Employees Rules, 2006. It has further been contended that there
is no scope of any further enhancement.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case the Tribunal has assessed the income of the
deceased as Rs.19,440/- per month and has correctly applied a multiplier of
'17', which has not been challenged by learned counsel for the claimant-
appellants However, a deduction of 40% has wrongly been applied towards
personal expenses of the deceased. In the present case there are two claimants
i.e. husband and the minor daughter of the deceased. The argument of learned
counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company that a deduction of 50%
ought to have been made since there was only one claimant, deserves to be
rejected as the deceased would have been contributing towards the house
running alongwith her husband and hence both the husband and the daughter
would be treated as claimants and hence a deduction of 1/3rd is to be applied.
No addition has been made towards loss of future prospects. Keeping in view
the age of the deceased, who was 26 years of age and the fact that the deceased
was a Lecturer Guest Faculty and has not been treated as a permanent
employee and her family has not been granted any compensation under the
Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased
Government Employees Rules, 2006, an addition of 40% is to be made
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150178
towards loss of future prospects. Further, no amount has been awarded
towards loss of estate, however, an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded
towards transportation and funeral expenses, which is not in accordance with
the law and hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company
Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra), the claimant-appellants would be
entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and
Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses. The amount
awarded under the head 'loss of consortium' is also not in consonance with
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence the claimant-
appellants would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- (Rs.40,000+20% increase)
each towards loss of spousal and parental consortium.
7. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income Rs.19,440/-
2 Annual Income [Rs.19,440 x 12] = Rs.2,33,280/-
rd
3 Deduction - 1/3 [Rs.2,33,280 - 77,760] = Rs.1,55,520/-
4 Future Prospects - 40% [Rs.1,55,520 + 62,208] = Rs.2,17,728/-
5 Multiplier - 17 [Rs.2,17,728 x 17] = Rs.37,01,376/-
6 Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
8 Loss of consortium
(i) Spousal Rs.48,000/-
(ii) Parental Rs.48,000/-
Rs.96,000/-
Total Rs.38,33,376/-
8. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded
by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 8% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount. The
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150178
enhanced amount of compensation shall be apportioned amongst the claimant-
appellants as directed by the Tribunal.
9. In view of the above discussion, present appeal is disposed off in
the above terms. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
18.11.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
5 of 5
