Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Rani vs Ved Parkash on 23 September, 2024
resent appeal has been filed by the
appellants/petitioners/claimants (hereinafter referred as 'claimant') in
MACT Case No.32 of 2001, dated 07.04.2001, for modification of award
dated 13.02.2003, passed by Ld. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Panipat (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. Tribunal') by making
LAVISHA
2024.10.01 19:23
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
enhancement of amount of compensation, on account of death of
deceased -Ram Chander.
4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 08.03.2001, at
about 6:30 P.M. Ram Chander (deceased) was coming from factory i.e
M/S GVN Engg., near Babarpur Mandi , G.T. Road, to the workshop on
G.T Road on his bicycle. When he reached near Himachal Dhaba, near
village Simla-Mulana, a Maruti Car bearing registration No.HR-070-
7095 driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner hit his
bicycle as a result of which he suffered multiple grievous injuries and
ultimately succumbed to them. Resultantly, FIR No.39 dated 08.03.2001
was also registered.
5. Appellant-Raj Rani widow of the deceased and their four
minor children-Sunil, Madhu, Nisha and Deepak, filed a claim petition
under Section 166/140 of the motor vehicle Act, 1988 for seeking
compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs on account of death of 'Ram
Chander' 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
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,100/-, deducted 1/3rd on account
of his personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 16, granted
Rs.10,000/- with respect to funeral expenses, loss of consortium and
estate and accordingly, awarded total compensation to the claimant to the
tune of Rs.2,78,000 /- payable by respondents severally and jointly with
interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its
realization.
authenticity of this order/judgment
Appellants/Petitioners/Claimants have filed the present
petition, seeking enhancement of the compensation as awarded by the Ld.
Tribunal.
6. While addressing arguments, counsel for the appellants
submits that the Ld. Tribunal has erred in determining the monthly salary
of the deceased -Ram Chander as he was working as Mistri (mechanic)
in the workshop of GVN Engineers at G.T Road, Panipat and used to
earn Rs.7,000/- per month, failed to enhance the income on account of
future prospects; erred in applying multiplier; has deducted personal
expenses on the higher side and granted only lump-sum compensation of
Rs.10,000/- on account of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss
of estate.
7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.3 -
Insurance Company, submits that the Ld. Tribunal has rightly determined
the monthly salary of the deceased and there is no need to interfere in the
amount of compensation awarded by the Ld. Tribunal. Thus, the present
appeal was liable to be dismissed.
8. This Court has gone through the impugned award and the
calculations mentioned therein, apart from hearing learned counsel for
the parties. There is 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)
authenticity of this order/judgment
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.
9. No evidence has been led to prove that deceased was
working as mechanic and earning Rs.7,000/-per month. In the absence of
any evidence, this court considers the deceased as an unskilled worker
and accordingly, applies the minimum wage prevalent on the date of
death of the deceased i.e. 08.03.2001, in the state of Haryana. Therefore,
the monthly income of deceased has been correctly assessed by the
Tribunal as Rs.2,100/-.
The Tribunal has assessed the age of deceased as 30 years,
however, upon a closer examination of facts and memorandum of parties
of the present appeal, it becomes evident that the deceased was likely
older than 30 years. His wife is 35 years of age, as per the MOP, and in
an Indian society, usually husbands are older than their wives.
Furthermore, the eldest son of the deceased is 15 years old, which implies
that even if the deceased married at the age of 18, his age would still
exceed 30 years.
Therefore, age recorded in PMR (post mortem report)
appears to be correct.
10. Thus, from the evidence on record, it stands established that
the deceased was aged 40 years and as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra),
addition of 25%, on the count of 'future prospects' has to be made and
authenticity of this order/judgment
total amount of earnings comes to be Rs.2,100 + Rs.525 (25% of
Rs.2100) = Rs.2,625/- per month.
Out of the same, keeping in view the number of dependents
i.e. widow and four children, 1/4th is to be deducted on account of
'personal expenses', which is to the extent of Rs.656.25/- and the residue
amount works out to be Rs.1968.75/- per month and annual income
comes out to be Rs.23,625/- (Rs.1968.75 x 12). Considering the age of
the deceased as per Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier to be
applied in the present case is '15' and after, applying the multiplier, the
loss of dependency comes to be Rs.23,625 x 15 = Rs.3,54,375/-.
11. 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.
12. 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 consortium is to be awarded to the tune of Rs.48,400/- for
each of the claimants in the instant appeal.
authenticity of this order/judgment
13. For the sake of convenience, a comparative table of the
compensation as assessed and calculated by Ld. Tribunal and this Court
is produced below in a tabular form:
Sr. Heads Compensation Compensation
No. awarded by the awarded by the
Ld. Tribunal High Court
1. Income Rs.2,100/-p.m. Rs.2,100/-p.m.
2. Future Prospects Nil Rs.525(25% of
Rs.2,100)
3. Deduction towards Rs.700/- (1/3rd of Rs. 656.25/-(1/4th of
personal expenses Rs.2,100) Rs.2,100 +Rs.525)
4. Total Annual Income Rs.16,800/- Rs.23,625/-
(Rs.1968.75 X 12)
6. Loss of Dependency Rs.2,68,800 Rs.3,54,375/-.
7. Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/-
8. Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/-
9. Loss of Spousal Rs. 48,400 /-
Consortium
10. Loss of Parental Nil Rs.1,93,600/-
Consortium (48,400 X 4)
11. Loss of filial Nil
Consortium
12. Total Compensation Rs.2,78,600/- Rs.6,41,375/-
to be Paid
14. Counsel for the appellants further submits that the rate of
interest awarded by the Ld. Tribunal i.e. at 9% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition till. However, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No.3 - Insurance Co., submits that the rate of
authenticity of this order/judgment
interest should not be over the awarded amount and therefore, it should
not be more than 6% per annum.
15. Thus, keeping in view the aim of this beneficial legislation
of providing relief to the victims or their families, the total compensation
payable to the appellant (petitioner/claimant) is enhanced to
Rs.6,41,375/- (Six lacs forty one thousand three hundred and seventy
five Rupees), within a period of three months from the date of this order,
along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition till the date of payment of compensation to the appellants
(claimants).
16. 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.
17. Therefore, by partly modifying the award, present appeal is
hereby allowed with the terms indicated here-above.
authenticity of this order/judgment
