Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dropti And Ors vs Vinod And Ors on 17 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054865
2023:PHHC:054865 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
251 FAO-1481-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 17.04.2023
Smt. Drop1 & Others
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Vinod & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Ms. Deepali Verma, Advocate for
Dr. Deipa Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-9978-CII-2021 This is an applica on under Sec on 5 of the Limita on Act, 1963 read with Sec on 151 CPC seeking condona on of delay of 169 days in filing the appeal.
A,er going through the contents of the applica on, the same is allowed subject to all just excep ons.
MAIN CASE Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa on of Rs.12,31,600/- granted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (hereina,er referred to as "the learned Tribunal") vide Award dated 08.07.2019 passed in MACP/237/2017 filed under Sec on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereina,er referred 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2023 21:08:53 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054865 2023:PHHC:054865 2 to as "the Act"). Claimants are widow, one major son, and parents of deceased-Bhagat Singh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Bhagat Singh had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 10.06.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of trolla bearing registra on No.HR-38R-7865 (hereina,er referred to as "the offending vehicle") being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. FIR No.467 dated 10.06.2017 under Sec ons 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1890 was also registered with regard to aforesaid accident at Police Sta on Sadar, Palwal. Learned Tribunal awarded compensa on as above along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the pe on ll realisa on. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensa on.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensa on inter alia on the grounds:
i) that learned Tribunal has taken income of the deceased on lower side as only Rs.12,000/- per month. It is submiCed that the Appellants had placed cogent evidence on record to prove that the deceased was doing agricultural work and was single-handedly cul va ng the en re agricultural land of 7.5 acres and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Deceased was the sole bread-earner of the family and all the appellants were dependent on him;
2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2023 21:08:54 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054865 2023:PHHC:054865 3
ii) that learned Tribunal has granted only Rs.40,000/- towards consor um whereas the appellants are en tled to Rs.40,000/- each towards consor um;
iii) that learned Tribunal has made deduc on of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased whereas keeping in mind that the claimants are four in number, learned Tribunal ought to have made deduc on of 1/4th towards personal expenses.
4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.
6. i) Perusal of record of the case shows that in determining income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month, the learned Tribunal took into considera on the fact that as per relevant Minimum Wage no fica on, income of the deceased could have been taken as Rs.8,280/- per month. However, Learned Tribunal considered judgment of this Court in Gurdeep Singh Vs. Tarsem Singh 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 774 wherein it has been held that in a case such as the present one where the deceased was cul va ng about 7 acres of land, services rendered by him in managing and cul va ng the land should be es mated in terms of money as Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal appreciated the fact that in the said case, the accident had taken place as far back as in 1988 whereas in the present case accident was of 2017, and held that therefore, it would be fair and just to assess no onal income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month. In this regard, 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2023 21:08:54 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054865 2023:PHHC:054865 4 learned Tribunal rejected judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company in State of Haryana & Others Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others 2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 140 that deceased be treated as a labourer and his income be assessed as per relevant Minimum Wage no fica on on the ground that in the said case, ownership of deceased over the land and nature of land was not proved. Whereas, in the present case, the claimants placed sufficient evidence on record to prove ownership of the deceased on the land measuring 7 acres;
ii) As regards conten on of the appellants that agricultural income of the deceased has not been considered, I find no merit in the said submission as, as per established legal posi on, income from agriculture is not to be taken into account while compu ng compensa on as the same is s ll available with the appellants/claimants. AdmiCedly, land in the ownership of the deceased has devolved upon the claimants. In fact, as per tes mony of PW1 who is claimant/appellant No.2 Charanjeet Singh/major son of the deceased, he has stated that a,er the death of the deceased he has taken up farming. In view of the above facts, I find no error in no onal income as assessed by the learned Tribunal;
iii) As regards deduc on of 1/3rd towards personal expenses, appellant/claimant No.2 being major son of the deceased is not en tled to any compensa on in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of SLP No.13931 of 2017 tled as "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & Others" and this Court in (P&H) 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2023 21:08:54 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054865 2023:PHHC:054865 5 Harpal Kaur & Others Vs. Sita Ram & Others, Law Finder Doc Id # 921104; Narender Nayyar Vs. Sheodan Singh & Others, Law Finder Doc Id # 626136 and Sajna Devi & Others Vs. Vijender Kumar & Others, Law Finder Doc Id # 921100 wherein it has been held that major children of the deceased being not dependent on the deceased, are not en tled to any compensa on. Moreover, appellant/claimant No.2 as PW1 has also deposed that a,er death of his father/ the deceased he has taken up farming. It therefore, follows that there were only three dependents of the deceased and hence, deduc on of 1/3rd towards personal expenses is also correct;
iv) As regards conten on on part of the appellants that claimants No.3 & 4 are en tled to Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consor um whereas only Rs.40,000/- has been granted, latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Civil Appeal Nos. 2410-2412 of 2023 Shri Ram General Insurance Com. Ltd. vs. Bhagat Singh Rawat & Ors. is relevant wherein it has been held that total amount payable under head of consor um is Rs.40,000/-; meaning thereby that consor um in toto of Rs. 40,000/- has to be granted, and each of the claimants are not en tled to consor um of Rs. 40,000/- each;
vi) Even otherwise, even if plea of the appellants were to be accepted, at best Rs.80,000/- more would have been awarded towards filial consor um to claimants No. 3 and 4. The difference in compensa on therefore, comes to only Rs.80,000/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vinish Jain (supra) has held that 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2023 21:08:54 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054865 2023:PHHC:054865 6 where the difference in compensa on is about 4% to 5% only, it does not warrant the interference by this Court as, such varia on in compensa on is within permissible limits. No case law to the contrary has been cited by learned counsel for the appellants before this Court.
7. Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, I find no case is made out that merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the compensa on awarded to the appellants to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the present case. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legisla on yet, as cau oned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Moreover, compensa on awarded upon the death of a near and dear loved one cannot be made a market nego a on, where every penny has to be calculated and drawn. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur, (1999) 1 SCC 90 and Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev She?y, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensa on should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same me it should not be a piCance. Thus, all that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensa on accorded is 'just'. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very 'just' compensa on, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In case of KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2023 21:08:54 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054865 2023:PHHC:054865 7 sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensa on.
8. In view of the above facts, I find no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Award. Present appeal accordingly, stands dismissed.
9. Pending applica on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
17.04.2023 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054865
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 11-06-2023 21:08:54 :::