Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sohan Lal And Another vs Padam Singh And Others on 29 January, 2014
FAO No.2949 of 2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.M. Nos.9703-04-CII of 2011 in/and
F.A.O. No.2949 of 2011
Date of decision : 29.01.2014
Sohan Lal and another
...... Appellants
versus
Padam Singh and others
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : None for the appellants.
Mr. D. R. Bansal, Advocate
for the respondent No.3-insurance company.
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
C.M. Nos.9703-04-CII of 2011 For the reasons recorded, the applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions. Delay of 381 days in filing the appeal and delay of 106 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
F.A.O. No.2949 of 2011
This appeal has been filed by the claimants for the enhancement of compensation and to modify the award dated 02.05.2009 awarding Sharma Ashish 2014.03.25 13:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2949 of 2011 (O&M) -2- compensation of `1,99,000/- along with the interest of 7.5% p.a. on account of death of Mahender Singh aged 22 years.
Brief facts are that on 05.04.2006 the deceased was going from Punhana to village Bahin in the Jeep bearing No.HR-28-6801. When the Jeep reached a little ahead of Anaj Godown, Hodal, one wild cow (Neel Gai) appeared on the road. The driver of the Jeep was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He could not control the vehicle and struck against the said cow. The occupants of the Jeep including the deceased sustained injuries. The deceased was rushed to the Community Health Centre, Hodal but the concerned medical officer declared him brought dead.
It transpires that the salary of the deceased has been fixed at `3000/- (for want of any other positive evidence) on the basis of the minimum wages of the year 2006. There can be no fault in this.
Further I find that 50% has to be added to the income on account of future prospects as per the law laid down in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others reported as 2013(9) SCC 54. Further nothing has been granted on account of loss of love and affection and only `7000/- has been awarded under other conventional heads which is highly inadequate as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others, (2013-3) PLR 776.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company has argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others' case (supra) granted a total amount of `1 lac towards loss of consortium to the widow and `1 lac to three minor children for loss of care and guidance and Sharma Ashish 2014.03.25 13:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2949 of 2011 (O&M) -3- no reason has been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the same.
On the other hand in Vimal Kanwar and others' case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded a sum of `1 lac to the widow and a sum of `2 lac to the minor girl on account of loss of love and affection, and another sum of `1 lac towards loss of consortium to the widow.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has further argued that deduction should be 50% in the case of unmarried son and in the present case deduction of 1/3rd has been applied. I accept this argument.
Keeping in view the entire conspectus of facts, I award `50,000/- to the respondent No.4-mother on account of loss of love and affection. I also add future prospects in the income with the addition of 50% in view of the observations made by this Court in F.A.O. No.2990 of 2011, titled as Manjit Kaur and others vs. Ramesh Kumar and others, decided on 08.01.2014. I further hold that deduction of 50% has to be applied.
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the multiplier of 18 has to be applied instead of 8 according to the age of the deceased as held in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2001) 6 SCC 121, P.S.Somanathan and others v. District Insurance Officer and another (2011) 3 SCC 566 and Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 2012 ACJ 2002; wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that only the age of the deceased should be kept into consideration while fixing the multiplier.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-insurance company has countered by relying upon the judgments in U.P. State Transport Sharma Ashish 2014.03.25 13:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2949 of 2011 (O&M) -4- Corportation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others (1996) 4 SCC 362, Ramesh Singla and others v. Satbir Singh and another 2008 (1) SCC 667 and Shakti Devi v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. and another 2010 (14) SCC 575, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down a different provision by stating that the multiplier should be applied after taking into the consideration the age of the claimants.
In my opinion, while adopting a multiplier, the age of the deceased as well as the age group of the claimants is a valid consideration. The expectancy of life of deceased is to be taken into consideration to arrive at a conclusion as to for how many years he could have supported the claimants. So far as the claimants are concerned their age-group is required to be considered to arrive at a conclusion as to for how many years they would have survived and could have enjoyed the dependency allowance of the deceased. Keeping in view the conflicting decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and taking support from the decision of Division Bench of our High Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v Raj Rani 1998 (1) ACJ 175, in my considered view, the age of the deceased as well as the age group of the claimants is required to be taken into consideration while adopting a multiplier for determining the dependency to award compensation to the claimant.
In the present case, the claimants are about 55 to 60 years. Consequently, even though for the deceased who was 22 year old there would be multiplier of 18 yet keeping in view the age of the claimants the Sharma Ashish 2014.03.25 13:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2949 of 2011 (O&M) -5- multiplier of 13 is ordered.
For the purpose of funeral expenses and transportation, I award `18,000/- more. It is made clear that apart from the amounts awarded along with the interest in favour of the claimant individually, the apportionment and management of the enhanced amount along with the interest as awarded by the Tribunal will be as per the order of the Tribunal.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms and the award is modified accordingly.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI )
January 29, 2014 JUDGE
ashish
Sharma Ashish
2014.03.25 13:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh