Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiela Devi And Others vs Madan Singh And Others on 9 November, 2009
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: A.N.Jindal
FAO No.2056 of 2009(O&M) [1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
FAO No.2056 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : November 09, 2009 Shiela Devi and others ... Appellants VERSUS Madan Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.L.S.Bhangu, Advocate for the Appellants.
A.N.JINDAL, J.-
This appeal for enhancement of compensation, is directed against the award dated 13.12.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Adhoc), Patiala, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.19,20,000/- along with interest @ 6% in favour of the claimants - petitioners (herein referred as the claimants), on account of the death of Parveen Sharma, aged about 30 years, in a motor vehicle accident.
The respondents, who are driver, owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. Bus bearing No.RJ-14-IP-8061, have neither challenged the negligence, nor their liability.
However, the claimants have sought enhancement of compensation on three grounds; firstly, that though the deceased was 30 years old, therefore, the Tribunal should have applied multiplier of 17 FAO No.2056 of 2009(O&M) [2 ] instead of `16' in this case as per observations made by the Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR(Civil) 77 ; secondly, the Tribunal awarded interest @ 6% per annum only, which is quite on the lower side; and, thirdly, no amount of compensation was awarded on account of funeral and transportation expenses.
Having heard the rival contentions, it may be noticed that the deceased was employed as the Manager (HRD) with M/s Heal All Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd, at Ludhiana and was getting a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month i.e. Rs.1,80,000/- per annum. The Tribunal without deducting the income-tax, which he would have been paying, applied the cut of 1/3rd towards self-dependency and assessed the net dependency at Rs.10,000/- per month, whereas, the Tribunal should have first deducted the income-tax and then, assess the net dependency towards the claimants. Needless to say, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the dependency, but the Court while examining the adequacy of the compensation, could look into this aspect of the case. As such, if the aforesaid aspect is examined, then the amount required to be adjusted towards the income-tax, could be adjusted towards the amount of one unit of multiplier as well as the expenses incurred towards the transportation and funeral, which were incurred on the death of the deceased.
Now, coming to the interest part, it is observed that the Tribunal while exercising its discretion has awarded interest @ 6% per annum on the award amount and this Court is reluctant to interfere in this discretion exercised by the Tribunal. In any way, keeping in view the FAO No.2056 of 2009(O&M) [3 ] present economic set up, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be inappropriate.
No grounds to interfere.
Dismissed.
November 09, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE