Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Rani vs Asru Khan Son Of Shri Bhappu Khan on 25 September, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.6444 of 2011(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.6444 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision: 25.09.2012
Vijay Rani, widow of late Shri Ramesh son of Shri Radhe
Shyam, resident of Mahabir Colony, Hisar and others.
... Appellants
Versus
Asru Khan son of Shri Bhappu Khan, resident of village Piproli,
P.S. Ramgarh, District Alwar-Rajasthan and others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate,
for the appellants.
None for respondents 1 and 2.
Ms. Puneeta Sethi, Advocate,
for respondent 3.
*****
1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? NO
2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest? NO
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a male aged 27 years in motor accident. The claimants were widow, 3 minor children and aged parents. The case of the appellants was that deceased owned a tractor and was doing agricultural work and was also ploughing the fields of other persons and earning about `10,000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, took the income `3,600/- per month as a FAO No.6444 of 2011(O&M) [2] labourer and proceeded to determine the compensation by applying the formula suggested by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009(6) SCC 121.
2. The learned counsel states that in a case where the deceased was shown to be registered owner of a tractor, the assessment of income merely at `3,600/- per month was not appropriate and fair. It was also urged that the deceased was supporting a large family and he could not have carried on his living merely at `3,600/- per month as though he was a labourer. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company states that in absence of evidence relating to income, the Tribunal was justified in taking the income at `3,600/- per month.
3. I would find that the Tribunal was in error in taking an unrealistic view of things by merely taking an owner of tractor who was said to be earning by attending to agriculture and also offering his tractor for hire as though he was a labourer. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was also supporting a large family of about 6 dependents, I would take the income at `6,000/- per month, provide a 1/5th deduction and take the monthly contribution to the family `4,800/- per month. I will adopt a multiplier of 17 in the manner suggested by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and take the loss of dependency at `9,79,200/-. I will provide for the loss of FAO No.6444 of 2011(O&M) [3] consortium to the wife and loss of love and affection to 3 minor children an amount of `5,000/- each and that would go for an additional amount of `20,000/-. To this shall be added `5,000/- for funeral expenses and `5,000/- for loss to estate in the manner already assessed by the Tribunal. The total compensation payable will be `10,09,200/- round off as to `10,10,000/-. The additional amount will also attract interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment.
4. Since the 1st petitioner is a young widow and the children were aged 12, 9 and 7 respectively, I will provide that as regards the additional compensation, larger share has to be provided to the wife and children than the parents themselves. The additional amount shall be shared in the ratio of 2:2:2:2:1:1 among wife, children and parents, respectively. The amount, that is awarded to the manner shall remain in deposit during the respective minority of the children and interest will be permitted to be withdrawn on quarterly basis by mother as a guardian till the attainment of respective age of majority. On attaining majority, 75% of the amount shall be permitted to be withdrawn for each one of the persons and remaining 25% shall be kept in deposit for a period of 3 years split in 3 portion each, the 1st portion for a period of one year, the 2nd portion for 2 years and 3rd portion for 3 years. They will be released on the respective dates of maturity. This shall be subject to any other FAO No.6444 of 2011(O&M) [4] modification that was become necessary by the compulsion of time such as higher education or marriage of the daughter, which could be done by resorting to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
5. That award of the Tribunal stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.
25th September, 2012 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE