Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shanti And Another vs Joginder Singh And Others on 26 August, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 5748 of 2011.
Date of Decision: 26.8.2013.
Shanti and another .... Appellants
Versus
Joginder Singh and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Daler Singh Nain, Advocate, for the appellants.
Ms. Sonamjeet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) Jagta Ram, in the age group of 60-70 years, died th in a road accident on December 9 , 2009 at about 6.30 PM on account of rash and negligent driving of four wheeler bearing No. HR-38-F-8692 driven by Joginder Singh while he was urinating. FIR No.126 under Section 304-A IPC was registered in Police Station Rajoand, District Kaithal against the driver of the four wheeler.
2. The widow and son of the deceased filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"), Kaithal. It was pleaded by them that the deceased was an agriculturist and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. According to the claimants, his age was about 52 years. In the post-mortem examination report (Exhibit P-3) age of the deceased was mentioned as 70 years. Except the bald statement of widow of the deceased, the claimants did not lead any evidence to prove the income and age of the deceased. In view of that, the Tribunal held rd his income at Rs.3000/- per month and deducting 1/3 for his personal and living expenses, loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.2000/- per month. With regard to multiplier, the Tribunal held the Sanjay 2013.09.14 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court FAO No. 5748 of 2011 (2) age of the deceased in between 50-60 years and applied the multiplier of 6 and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.1,44,000/-. Besides, a sum of Rs.20000/- was awarded for loss of consortium and estate and funeral expenses. In all, compensation of Rs.1,64,000/- was awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
3. In considered opinion of this Court, taking into consideration the afore-mentioned facts, it is a case wherein enhancement of amount of compensation is not required. Thus, the appeal is dismissed.
26.8.2013. (NAWAB SINGH)
SN JUDGE
Sanjay
2013.09.14 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court