Punjab-Haryana High Court
Seema & Anr vs Sushil Kumar & Ors on 20 November, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
270 FAO-8692-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 20.11.2024
Seema and Another ....Appellants
VERSUS
Sushil Kumar and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Nipun Vashist , Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. S.S. Khurana, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Shwas Bajaj, Advocate for
Mr. Prateek Rathee, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants
aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide award
dated 24.12.2013.
2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the
Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the
sake of brevity.
3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following
compensation :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly income Rs.4,200/-
2 Deduction - 50% [Rs.4,200 - 2,100] = Rs.2,100/-
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152537
3 Annual income [Rs.2,100 x 12] = Rs.25,200/-
4 Multiplier of 15 [Rs.25,200 x 15] = Rs.3,78,000/-
5 Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
6 Medical Bills Rs.2,64,376/-
Total Compensation Rs.6,67,378/-
Interest 6% per annum
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the income
of the deceased has wrongly been assessed as Rs.4,200/- per month as the
minimum wages of an unskilled worker prevailing at the relevant point of time
were Rs.4,643/- per month. It is further the contention that though the
deduction of 50% has rightly been applied, however, a multiplier of '15' has
wrongly been applied by the Tribunal, whereas it ought to have been '18'
keeping in view the age of the deceased being 19 years at the time of the
accident. It has further been contended that no addition has been made towards
loss of future prospects and no amount has been awarded under the head 'loss
of consortium' and further that the amount awarded under the conventional
heads is also not in accordance with the law. In support of his contention, he
has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6
SCC 121], 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].
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152537
awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any
enhancement.
6. Heard.
7. In the present case, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the
deceased as Rs.4,200/- per month whereas the minimum wages of an unskilled
worker at the relevant time i.e. at the time of accident were Rs.4,643/- per
month and hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.4,643/- per
month. In the present case, the Tribunal has though rightly applied a deduction
of 50%, however, a multiplier of '15' has wrongly been applied. The deceased
in the present case was 19 years of age and keeping in view the law laid down
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), a multiplier
of '18' would be applicable. Further, no addition has been made towards loss
of future prospects and hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition of 40% is to
be made towards loss of future prospects. Further, the amount awarded under
the conventional heads is not as per the law laid down and no amount has been
awarded under the head 'loss of consortium' and hence, as per the law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra),
Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree
(supra), the claimants 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 and the claimants would also be entitled to
Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of filial consortium.
The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical bills is maintained.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152537
8. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly Income Rs.4,643/-
2 Annual Income [Rs.4,643 x 12] = Rs.55,716/-
3 Deduction - 50% [Rs.55,716 - 27,858] = Rs. 27,858/-
4 Future Prospects - 40% [Rs.27,858 + 11,114] = Rs.39,002/-
5 Multiplier - 18 [Rs.39,002 x 18] = Rs.7,02,036/-
6 Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
7 Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
8 Medical Bills Rs.2,64,376/-
9 Loss of consortium
(i) Filial [Rs.48,000 x 2] = Rs.96,000/-
Total Rs.10,98,412/-
9. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded
by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount. The
enhanced amount of compensation shall be apportioned amongst the claimant-
appellants as directed by the Tribunal.
10. 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 )
20.11.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
4 of 4
