Punjab-Haryana High Court

Manjit Kaur And Ors vs Harminder Singh Alias Billa & Ors on 21 January, 2025

Author: Archana Puri

Bench: Archana Puri

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                CHANDIGARH


                                                                              FAO-8229-2014 (O&M)
                                                                    Date of Decision: January 21, 2025

                           Manjit Kaur and others
                                                                                          ...Appellants

                                                            VERSUS

                           Harminder Singh alias Billa and others
                                                                                        ...Respondents

                           CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

                           Present:     Mr.Naveeen Sharma, Advocate for
                                        Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellants.

                                        Mr.Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate
                                        for respondent No.3.

                                              ****

                           ARCHANA PURI, J.

The appellants-claimants have filed the present appeal, thereby

seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, on account of death of Manpreet Singh, in a

motor vehicular accident.

On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned

Tribunal had concluded about the accident to have taken place on

05.10.2011, on account of rash and negligent driving of Tavera car bearing

registration No.CH-04K-5991, driven by respondent No.1-Harminder Singh

alias Billa and the same resulted into death of Manpreet Singh, who was 20

years old. The deceased was student of 5 th Semester of Mechanical

Engineering, in Doaba College, Raipur. Considering the same and evidence

brought on record, learned Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased,

who was unmarried as Rs.6,000/- per month, annual whereof comes to be

Rs.72,000/-. Also, learned Tribunal, considering the deceased to to be

unmarried, made deduction towards 'personal expenses' to the extent of

50% and the annual residue loss of dependency was taken as Rs.36,000/-.

Considering the age of PW-1 Manjit Kaur, mother of the deceased, to be 45

years, multiplier of '13' was applied and the compensation was worked upon

as Rs.4,68,000/-. An amount of Rs.5,000/- was granted towards 'funeral

expenses, transportation of body'. Thus, total compensation worked upon

was Rs.4,73,000/-. However, claimant No.1-Manjit Kaur, being mother of

the deceased was only granted the compensation, whereas, other claimants,

who are father, sister and brother of the deceased, were not considered as

dependents and thus, Manjit Kaur was held entitled to receive the amount of

compensation.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellants-claimants, have filed the

present appeal, primarily for seeking enhancement of the compensation.

However, the respondents, upon whom the liability was

fastened to pay the compensation, have not filed any appeal and do not

dispute about the fact of the accident and manner of taking place of the

same.

In the light of the educational inputs of the deceased, learned

Tribunal had appropriately considered the earnings of the deceased as

Rs.6,000/- per month. Even, considering the marital status of the deceased,

deduction on the count of 'personal expenses' made to the extent of 50%, is

appropriate. However, as per prevalent settled law, the addition on the count

of 'future prospects' was not made and also, the suitable multiplier has not

been applied. Besides the same, various other counts, as required, have also

been given amiss, in the present case. As such, the work on of the

compensation, as made aforesaid, do call for re-determination.

Now, taking the annual earnings of the deceased as Rs.72,000/-

per month, 50% deduction, on the count of 'personal expenses' is made and

the residue annual income comes to be Rs.36,000/-. To the said amount,

addition on the count of 'future prospects' ought to be made. Considering

the age of the deceased to be 20 years, as per National Insurance Company

Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, addition of

40% ought to be made, on the count of 'future prospects'. Thus, the annual

income of the deceased is worked upon as Rs.36000+14400=Rs.50,400/-.

Considering the age of mother of the deceased as 45 years, the

multiplier of '13' was applied, but however, the same is not appropriate. As

per Pranay Sethi's case (supra), it is the age of the deceased, which ought

to be taken into consideration, for application of the appropriate multiplier.

Thus, considering the age of the deceased, as per Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the appropriate

and suitable multiplier, to be applied is '18' and thus, by applying the same,

the loss of dependency, works out to be Rs.50400x18=Rs.9,07,200/-.

As per Pranay Sethi's case (supra), under the conventional

heads i.e. 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses', an amount of Rs.15,000/-

each is required to be granted to the dependents, which also called for

further enhancement to the extent of 10%, after period of every three years

of passing of the judgment and thus, at present, the compensation payable,

on the counts of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses', comes to be

Rs.18,150/-, on each count. On the count of 'loss of consortium',

compensation to the extent of Rs.48,400/- is required to be granted.

However, as per 'Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 (18) SCC 130', all the claimants,

entitled to 'parental', 'spousal' or 'filial' consortium, as required.

However, at this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the

compensation had been awarded only to the mother. So far as, appellants-

claimants No.3 and 4 are concerned, they are the unmarried younger brother

and sister of deceased Manpreet Singh. Father of the deceased was alive and

at the time of recording of his evidence, he was 48 years and considering his

age, definitely, the other siblings of the deceased are bound to be dependent

upon their father, more particularly, when the deceased himself was a

student. Considering the same, brother and sister of the deceased, are not

entitled to any such compensation.

But anyhow, appellant-claimant No.2-Lakhbir Singh, father of

the deceased, as such, is held entitled to compensation.

The word 'dependent' has a different meaning in different

connotation. Some may be dependent in terms of money and others may be

dependent in terms of service. It is a relative criteria to claim loss of

dependency. It is all the more important to consider that a father always is

dependent upon the young son, may be in terms of services only. In the

given circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to grant compensation,

even to Lakhbir Singh, father of deceased Manpreet Singh.

In consonance with the Magma's case (supra), both appellants-

claimants No.1 and 2, who are parents of the deceased, are entitled to

Rs.48,000/- each, on the count of 'filial consortium', which comes to

Rs.48,400x2=Rs.96,800/-.

Considering the same, the compensation payable to appellants-

claimants No.1 and 2, on account of death of Manpreet Singh, is re-

computed, as herein given:-

                                        Loss of dependency               :        Rs.9,07,200/-
                                        Loss of estate                   :        Rs.18,150/-
                                        Funeral expenses                 :        Rs.18,150/-
                                        Loss of consortium               :        Rs.96,800/-
                                        Total                            :        Rs.10,40,300/-

As such, the enhanced compensation, after the deduction of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to be Rs.10,40,300-

4,73,000=Rs.5,67,300/-. On the enhanced amount of the compensation i.e.

Rs.5,67,300/-, the appellants-claimants No.1 and 2 shall be entitled to the

interest, at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the present

appeal, till realization of the enhanced amount of compensation. The

amount of compensation, as now worked upon, shall be disbursed to the

appellants-claimants No.1 and 2 in equal shares. However, the

compensation, if any, disbursed to the appellant-claimant No.1-Manjit Kaur,

at any earlier stage, shall be adjusted accordingly.

Accordingly, the impugned Award dated 17.07.2013 stands

modified, to the extent, as indicated aforesaid. The residue terms of the