Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Veena Chadha And Others on 15 January, 2014
FAO No.2879 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision : 15.01.2014
1) F.A.O. No.2879 of 2013
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. ...... Appellant
versus
Veena Chadha and others ...... Respondents
2) F.A.O. No.3203 of 2013
Smt. Veena Chadha and another ...... Appellants
versus
Karnail Singh and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. T.K. Joshi, Advocate
for the appellant-insurance company (in FAO No.2879 of 2013)
for the respondent No.3 (in FAO No.3203 of 2013).
Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate
for the appellants-claimants (in FAO No.3203 of 2013)
for the respondent Nos.1 & 2-claimants (in FAO No.2879 of 2013)
***
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)
These are two appeals, one has been filed by the insurance Sharma Ashish 2014.02.04 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2879 of 2013 (O&M) -2- company against the award holding it liable to pay compensation of `7,56,648/- and the other has been filed by the claimants for the enhancement of compensation. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from FAO No.2879 of 2013.
Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has argued that the Tribunal has clearly erred in granting increase of 30% on account of future prospects since the deceased was of 65 years of age and, in the case of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that there would be no increase on account of future prospects if the deceased is more than 60 years of age.
Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents No.1 and 2 is not in a position to cite any contrary judgment. He has however argued that under the conventional heads the total amount awarded is only `10,000/- and he has claimed a sum of `3,25,000/- and on this account for loss of consortium, love and affection for the wife and the son and funeral expenses.
Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has stated that the amount demanded by learned counsel for the claimants is on the basis of the judgment in Rajesh's case (supra) but there the age of the deceased was 33 years whereas the age of the deceased in the present case is 65 years.
I can not deny that this argument has some logic but his further argument that the claimant No.2 is not entitled to any amount under the Sharma Ashish 2014.02.04 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2879 of 2013 (O&M) -3- conventional heads of loss of love and affection only because he is not dependent on the deceased, to my mind can not hold water. As pointed out by learned counsel for the claimants-respondents No.1 and 2 the Motor Vehicle Act talks about compensation to legal representatives and not only to dependents.
Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has further argued that the present was a case where the deceased has only one dependent i.e. Wife and consequently deduction on personal expenses should be of 50%. In this connection he has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in FAO No.5287 of 2011, decided on 26.08.2013, titled as Smt. Manjeet Kaur v. Sukhdev Raj and others, wherein it was held as follows:-
"Coming to the deduction, it has been laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) that in case the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd. The next group of deduction is where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3. It shows that even if the claimant is one and that is the wife, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be half. The monthly dependency of the claimant, thus, comes to `2875/- which multiplied with 12, bring the annual dependency at `34,500/-."
Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2-claimants has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in FAO No.5452 of 2012, decided on 02.08.2013, titled as The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sharma Ashish 2014.02.04 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2879 of 2013 (O&M) -4- Kuldeep Singh and others, wherein it was held as follows:-
"Even if a son is major and is earning, he does not stop looking to his father for financial help. It is not a case where the sons were drawing big salary and that they could not look to their father, who was getting petty amount. Sons even if they are major do not lose the status of legal representatives about which there is reference in Section 166(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the major sons can maintain a claim petition for compensation on the death of their father."
Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2-claimants has further relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in FAO No.1772 of 2013, decided on 09.04.2013, titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpinder Kaur and others, wherein it was held as follows:-
"4. Admittedly, the deceased had left behind not only his wife, but also his 3 major sons in the age group of 33-37. It is highly improbable that the sons would not have shared anything from the income of the deceased alongwith their mother. As the deceased had left behind his three sons also apart from his wife, in my view the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income from the income of the deceased."
In these circumstances, keeping in view all the judgments, I find myself in agreement with learned counsel for the claimants-respondents No.1 and 2 and consequently reject the argument that deduction should be half.
Resultantly, the award is maintained and the appeals are dismissed.
Sharma Ashish 2014.02.04 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2879 of 2013 (O&M) -5-
Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI )
January 15, 2014 JUDGE
ashish
Sharma Ashish
2014.02.04 17:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh