Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santosh Rani & Anr vs Jamil & Ors on 20 January, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
268 FAO-3749-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 20.01.2025
SANTOSH RANI & ORS .... Appellants
VERSUS
JAMIL & ORS .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, 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, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') vide award dated 19.02.2016.
2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award, are not in
dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
3. The Tribunal had awarded the following compensation :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1. Monthly income ₹10,000
2. Annual income [₹10,000 x 12] = ₹1,20,000
3. Deduction 1/3rd [₹1,20,000 - 40,000] = ₹80,000
4. Multiplier of '14' [₹80,000 x 14] = ₹11,20,000
5. Funeral expenses ₹50,000
6. Loss of love and affection ₹3,00,000
7. Medical expenses ₹50,000
Total ₹15,20,000
Interest @9% per annum
268 FAO-3749-2016 (O&M) -2-
4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that
no addition has been made towards future prospects and that the multiplier
of '14' has wrongly been applied which ought to have been '15' keeping in
view the age of the deceased at the time of the accident. In support of his
contentions the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants 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] and
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16
SCC 680].
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been
awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of
any enhancement.
6. Heard.
7. In the present case no addition has been made towards future
prospects and hence as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 25% addition is made towards future
prospects. Further, a multiplier of '14' has wrongly been applied and hence,
as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla
Verma (supra), multiplier of '15' would be applicable keeping in view the
age of the deceased being 40 years at the time of the accident. Since there is
no challenge to the income of ₹10,000 per month, deduction of 1/3rd,
medical expenses of ₹50,000, the amount of ₹50,000 awarded under the
head funeral expenses and loss of love and affection of ₹3,00,000 as
268 FAO-3749-2016 (O&M) -3-
assessed by the Tribunal, the same are maintained.
8. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1. Monthly income ₹10,000
2. Annual income [₹10,000 x 12] = ₹1,20,000
3. Deduction 1/3rd [₹1,20,000 - 40,000] = ₹80,000
4. Future prospects 25% [₹80,000 + ₹ 20,000] = ₹1,00,000
5. Multiplier of '15' [₹1,00,000 x 15] = ₹15,00,000
6. Funeral expenses ₹50,000
7. Loss of love and affection ₹3,00,000
8. Medical expenses ₹50,000
Total ₹19,00,000
Interest @ 9% per annum
9. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount
awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.
The amount shall be apportioned between the claimant-appellants as directed
by the Tribunal.
10. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed
and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
20.01.2025 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
