Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Kaur & Others vs Kamal Singh & Another on 27 March, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO No.5865 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.5865 of 2010
In MACT No.86 of 2008
Date of decision: 27.3.2012
Paramjit Kaur & others ...Appellant
Versus
Kamal Singh & another ....Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate,
for Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate
for respondent. No.2
`
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL
The claimant-appellants, have preferred this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar, whereby an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- has been awarded on account of death of Amrik Singh, in a vehicular accident that took place on 14.9.2008.
Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on 14.9.2008, at about 2.45 a.m. Near Aman Resorts, village Padiala, on Kharar-Kurali road, the deceased was replacing the tyre of his vehicle on left side of the road. In the meantime, bus bearing registration No. HP-68-2068 being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner came and struck against the truck of which the deceased was replacing the tyre. Consequently, the deceased received multiple serious injuries and died on the spot.
FAO No.5865 of 2010 -2-
The claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed but the claimants reasserting that the compensation amount allowed is inadequate.
Feeling dissatisfied, the claimants-appellants have come up in the present appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation.
The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the deceased was 32 years of age at the time of the accident and he was a able bodied person. The deceased was the only bread earner of the family including wife and three minor children. He further contends that the income assessed by the learned Tribunal at Rs.2000/- is on the lower side. The learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 13, which ought to have been
17. He further contends that the Tribunal has made a deduction of 1/3rd on the personal expenditure of the deceased which is also not adequate as the dependents are four in number.
The learned counsel for the respondent states that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is sufficient and adequate and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In the present case the deceased was 32 years of age and this fact is well established on record. Therefore the multiplier has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal and same ought to have been 16 instead of 13 as held by Hon'ble the FAO No.5865 of 2010 -3- Supreme Court in Sarla Verma V. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121. The income of deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.2000/- is also on the lower side. Even the minimum wages in the year 2004 were around Rs.4000/- per month. Therefore, this Court taking into consideration the age of the deceased enhance the income of the deceased from Rs.2000/- to 4000/- per month. The claimants-appellants are widow and three children of the deceased therefore, keeping in view the number of dependents, the deduction should be to the extent of 1/4th instead of 1/3rd . Another amount of Rs. 20,000/- is allowed towards the conventional heads. Ordered accordingly.
The enhanced amount comes to Rs.3,88,000/-
(Rs.4000/- (monthly income) X ¾ X 12 x 16(multiplier)+ 20,000 (awarded under conventional head)+ 2000/- (awarded by Tribunal under the head funeral expenses) =5,98,000 (5,98,000- 2,10,000(already awarded amount)= 3,88,000/- which shall be payable by the respondent to the claimants-appellants within 45 days from the receipt of certified copy of this judgment. If the amount is not paid, the claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 7 ½ % from the date of filing the appeal till its realisation.
With the above modification in the impugned award the appeal is partly allowed.
27.3.2012 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN) aarti JUDGE