Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukesh Kumari And Others vs Rajesh Kumar And Others on 1 March, 2025
Author: Archana Puri
Bench: Archana Puri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-4840-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: March 01, 2025
Smt.Mukesh Kumari and others
...Appellants
VERSUS
Rajesh Kumar and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present: Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate
for the appellants.
Respondents No.1 and 2 proceeded against ex-parte.
Mr.S.S.Sidhu, 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 Suresh Kumar, in a motor
vehicular accident and also assailed complete exoneration granted to the
insurance company, to pay the compensation.
The appellants-claimants had filed the claim petition under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for seeking compensation. As per
the version put forth by the claimants, on 27.10.2010, Suresh Kumar along
with Subhash, was the pillion rider of motorcycle bearing registration
No.HR-32C-9043, driven by respondent No.1-Rajesh Kumar. At about
10.00 p.m., when they reached near village Jajanwala, suddenly a Neel Gai
came in front of the motorcycle, as a result whereof, respondent No.1, turned
his motorcycle to save it, but he lost control over the motorcycle, which
plunged into ditches, resulting into multiple serious and grievous injuries.
Suresh Kumar was shifted to Janta Hospital, Barwala, but he succumbed to
his injuries. DDR No.11 dated 28.10.2010 was registered.
On appraisal of the evidence on record, learned Tribunal had
concluded about Suresh Kumar to have died in the accident, arising out of
the use of motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-32C-9043. Thereupon,
learned Tribunal, while considering the deceased as an agriculturist, took his
earnings as Rs.3200/- per month. 1/3rd was deducted towards 'personal
expenses' and the loss of dependency was taken as Rs.2200/-, annual
whereof is Rs.26,400/-. Considering the age of the deceased to be 26-27
years, multiplier of '18' was applied and the compensation was worked upon
as Rs.4,75,200/-. Besides the same, another amount of Rs.2000/- was
granted, on the count of 'funeral expenses', Rs.5000/- towards 'loss of
consortium' and Rs.2500/-, on the count of 'loss of estate'. Thus, in total,
the compensation was granted to the extent of Rs.4,84,700/-. However,
learned Tribunal, had saddled the liability, only upon respondents No.1 and
2, who are driver and owner of the offending motorcycle and complete
exoneration was granted to the insurance company to pay the compensation.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants-claimants filed the present
appeal, for seeking enhancement of the compensation and also made a
prayer for saddling the liability upon the respondent-insurance company
also.
However, the compensation worked upon aforesaid, do call for
re-computation.
The earnings of the deceased was taken as Rs.3200/- per month,
which, as such, is not contested by learned counsel for the appellants-
claimants. However, the deduction of 1/3rd, on the count of 'personal
expenses' to the extent of Rs.1000/- so made by learned Tribunal, in on
lower side. Considering the extent of earnings, 1/3rd comes to be Rs.1066/-
and the residue amount, comes to be Rs.3200-1066=Rs.2134/-, annual
whereof comes to be Rs.25,608/-. Considering the age of the deceased to be
26-27 years, as per Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the suitable and appropriate multiplier to be
applied is '17', instead of '18', as applied by learned Tribunal. Thus, by
applying the same, the loss of dependency works out to be
Rs.25608x17=Rs.4,35,336/-.
Besides the aforesaid, as per 'Magma General Insurance
Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 (18)
SCC 130', each of the appellants-claimants are entitled to 'parental',
'spousal' or 'filial' consortium, as required. Considering the same, as per
Pranay Sethi's case (supra), an amount of Rs.40,000/- 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 pronouncement of the
judgment and taking it to be so, the compensation, on the count of 'loss of
consortium', at present, works out to be Rs.48,400/- to each of the claimants
i.e. Rs.48,400x4=Rs.1,93,600/- and likewise, on the counts of 'loss of
estate' and 'funeral expenses', the compensation payable, comes to be
Rs.18,150/-, on each count.
Considering the same, the compensation payable to appellants-
claimants, on account of death of Suresh Kumar, is re-computed, as herein
given:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.4,35,336/-
Loss of consortium : Rs.1,93,600/
Loss of estate : Rs.18,150/-
Funeral expenses : Rs.18,150/-
Total : Rs.6,65,236/-
As such, the enhanced compensation, after the deduction of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to be Rs.6,65,236-
4,84,700=Rs.1,80,536/-. On the enhanced amount of the compensation i.e.
Rs.1,80,536/-, the appellants-claimants 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.
However, the liability to pay the compensation was saddled
solely upon the driver and owner of the offending motorcycle. Considering
the fact that three persons were travelling on the aforesaid motorcycle, the
insurance company was absolved from the liability to pay the compensation.
The copy of the insurance policy has been proved on record, which
reveals about the seating capacity to be 'two' and this liability includes the
liability incurred for the use of the vehicle for death or injury of the
passenger, on the vehicle. The word 'passenger' in this context, must be
seen as persons travelling on the motorcycle. If there was policy cover for
risk of death or injury to a passenger, then the insurer will become liable by
the user of the motorcycle, in terms of the policy. Consequently, the
complete denial of liability by the insurance company cannot be accepted.
In this context, it is pertinent to mention that no doubt, three
persons were occupants of the motorcycle in question, at the relevant time,
but however, the competence of the person, who was driving the motorcycle,
as such, was not disputed. Nothing is coming on record, about the accident
to have taken place, solely, on account of three occupants travelling on the
offending motorcycle.
In the given circumstances, the liability of the insurance
company, is to be restricted only to two passengers, meaning thereby, the
entitlement for the rider and the entitlement of the representatives of the
pillion rider. Deceased Suresh Kumar was the pillion rider, who had died, as
a result of the accident in question and therefore, claim on account of his
death is under consideration. Thus, the insurance company, ought to be
made liable to the sole victim of the accident in question.
Considering the same, the insurance company is also held liable
to pay the compensation, together with respondents No.1 and 2, jointly and
severally.
Accordingly, the impugned Award dated 03.07.2013 stands
modified, to the extent, as indicated aforesaid.
With the above observations, the present appeal stands allowed.
March 01, 2025 (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
