Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash And Another vs Fateh Singh And Others on 1 May, 2012
F.A.O.No.2205 of 2011(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O.No.2205 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision: May 01, 2012
Om Parkash and another
... Appellants
Versus
Fateh Singh and others
... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present: Mr.Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.R.N.Singhal, Advocate for respondent No.3
- Insurance Company.
NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)
In this appeal, filed against the award dated November 18, 2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short `the Tribunal'), the question falling for decision by this Court is whether the multiplier applied by the Tribunal was correct or not.
2. Manjit, a bachelor, labourer by profession, died in a vehicular accident on October 19, 2008.
3. His Parents filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3600/- per month and after deducting ½ on account of his personal living expenses, dependency was held to be Rs.1800/- per month. Considering the age of the parents in the age group of 55-60 years, F.A.O.No.2205 of 2011(O&M) [2] multiplier of 5 was applied and an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- was assessed towards loss of dependency. In addition to it, Rs.10,000/- were also assessed towards transportation charges and funeral expenses, that is, a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- was awarded as compensation along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till actual payment.
5. Aggrieved by the award, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
6. It has been established by now by judicial pronouncements that in a case where the age of the claimant/s is higher than the age of the deceased, the age of claimant/s and not the age of the deceased has to be taken into account for the capitalization of the lost dependency. It is so because the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, whichever is higher. To support this view, reference can be made to General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994(2) SCC 176, Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(6) SCC 121 and Shakti Devi vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2011 AIR SC (Civil) 164.
7. In Shakti Devi's case (supra), the age of the claimant (parents) on the date of accident was about 54-55 years and the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon the case of Smt.Sarla Verma's case (supra), applied the multiplier of 11.
8. Herein, the age of the mother was held to be 55 years. So, the multiplier of 11 needs to be applied, instead of 5, as done by the Tribunal. Applying the same, the loss of dependency comes to 1800x12x11 = 2,37,600/-. Thus, the total compensation would be :- F.A.O.No.2205 of 2011(O&M) [3]
Rs.2,37,000 + Rs.10,000 = Rs.2,47,000/-, that is Rs.1,29,000/- (Rs.2,47,000 - 1,18,000) over and above the awarded amount.
9. Accordingly, the compensation amount is enhanced by Rs.1,29,000/- along with interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (7% per annum) from the date of filing of claim application till the awarded amount was deposited by the Insurance Company under the impugned award.
10. In view of Sarla Verma's case (Supra), only the mother would be considered to be a dependant and the father is likely to have his own income and need not be considered as a dependant. Thus, the enhanced amount of compensation shall be taken by Smt.Sumitra, the mother of the deceased, exclusively.
May 01, 2012 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE