Punjab-Haryana High Court
The New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Kuldeep Singh And Ors on 2 August, 2013
F.A. Os. No. 5452 and 5462 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
1- F.A.O. No. 5452 of 2012
Date of decision:-02.08.2013
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
....... Appellant
Versus
Kuldeep Singh and ors.
........ Respondents
2- F.A.O. No. 5462 of 2012
Date of decision:-02.08.2013
Kuldeep Singh and another
....... Appellants
Versus
Jagraj Singh and ors.
........ Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. C.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the
appellant in FAO No.5452 of 2012 and
for respondent no.3 in FAO No.5462 of 2012.
Kumar Dinesh
2013.08.07 11:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court,Chandigarh
F.A. Os. No. 5452 and 5462 of 2012
-2-
Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2 in
FAO No.5452 of 2012 and for
the appellants in FAO No.5462 of 2012.
Mr. G.B.S. Dhillon, Advocate
for respondents No.3 and 4 in
FAO No. 5452 of 2012 and for
respondents no.1 and 2 in
FAO No.5462 of 2012..
****
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
The above mentioned two appeals are directed against the award dated 24.07.2012. While FAO No.5452 of 2012 has been brought by the New India Assurance Company Ltd., the insurer, FAO No.5462 of 2012 has been brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.
Kuldeep Singh and Jaswinder Singh sons of Ekam Singh had brought a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of Ekam Singh in a road side accident that took place on 07.11.2006. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short 'the Tribunal') has allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.8,15,752/- as compensation.
Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.07 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh
F.A. Os. No. 5452 and 5462 of 2012 -3- Ekam Singh is claimed to have died at the age of 54 years. He was employed with Sidhwan Drains, Sub Division, Ludhiana (Irrigation Department). His monthly income is claimed to be Rs.25,000/- . A sum of Rs.25,000/- is claimed to have been spent on his last rites.
The respondents have denied the claimants to be entitled to compensation. They are denied to be dependents of the deceased being his major sons.
Learned Tribunal took up the income of the deceased at Rs.11,191/- per month. Deduction at the rate of 1/3rd is applied thereto to assess the dependency of the claimants. A sum of Rs.89,528/- is found as the annual dependency of the claimants. Learned Tribunal has found the age of the deceased as 58 years and in view of the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the multiplier adopted is of 9. A sum of Rs.8,05,752/- was, thus, found to be the amount lost by the claimants in the death of Ekam Singh. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was added thereto in the name of funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium and a total sum of Rs.8,15,752/- has been awarded as compensation.
Learned senior counsel for the insurer-appellant has submitted that the deceased was 58 years old and was to retire Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.07 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. Os. No. 5452 and 5462 of 2012 -4- within a period of two years. According to him, the income of the deceased would not have remained at the same level after those two years and, therefore, the multiplier of 9 could not have been adopted for assessing compensation taking the annual dependency at Rs.89,528/-. His second submission is that the claimants are major sons of the deceased and they were having their own income and, therefore, they are not the dependents and so no amount could be awarded as compensation to them.
Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that though the deceased was to retire within a period of two years, multiplier system would require the annual dependency to be multiplied with the multiplier and the annual dependency cannot be reduced after the date of retirement of the deceased. In this regard they have cited a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Sri K.R. Madhusudhan and ors. v. The Administrative Officer and another 2011 STPL (Web) 146 SC.
Learned counsel for the respondents have further submitted that the major sons are entitled to compensation because they are the legal representatives of their father and section 166(1)(c) talks of legal representatives as the claimants and not the dependents. They have also cited a decision of Division Bench of this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Gurbachan Singh Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.07 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. Os. No. 5452 and 5462 of 2012 -5- and others 2008 ACJ 979 where the major son was the only claimant and deduction applied was only 1/3rd and the claim was allowed.
Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has also submitted that the deceased had lost a son in his life time and on his death, he was getting Rs.5035/- as family pension, which has been lost in the death of Ekam Singh. According to him, this amount was wrongly rejected by learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that this amount is required to be added to the income of the deceased to assess compensation.
Taking the point of split multiplier, firstly it has to be seen that the deceased was to retire within a period of two years and definitely his salary would have been converted into a pension, which would have been about ½ of the same. However, the multiplier system does not call for taking of different annual dependencies of two different periods. The judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma's case supra makes no distinction in this regard. It has been made clear in the following paragraph of Sri K.R.Madhusudhan's case supra:-
"In view of this evidence the Tribunal should have considered the prospect of future income while computing compensation but the Tribunal has not done that. In the Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.07 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. Os. No. 5452 and 5462 of 2012 -6- appeal, which was filed by the appellants before the High Court, the High Court instead of maintaining the amount of compensation, granted by the Tribunal, reduced the same. In doing so, the High Court had not given any reason. The High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the Tribunal without disclosing any reason therefore. The High Court has also not considered the clear and corroborative evidence about the prospect of future increment of the deceased. When the age of the deceased is between 51 and 55 years the multiplier is 11, which is specified in the II Column in the II Schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Tribunal has not committed any error by accepting the said multiplier. This Court also fails to appreciate why the High Court chose to apply the multiplier of 6"
Even if a son is major and is earning, he does not stop looking to his father for financial help. It is not a case where the sons were drawing big salary and that they could not look to their father, who was getting petty amount. Sons even if they are major do not lose the status of legal representatives about which there is reference in section 166 (1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the major Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.07 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. Os. No. 5452 and 5462 of 2012 -7- sons can maintain a claim petition for compensation on the death of their father.
The only question left to be examined is as to whether the pension amount has been wrongly rejected by the Tribunal. The deceased was having Rs.5035/- as pension on the death of his son. He would have got the same in his life time and, therefore, it was part of his income. This amount should have been added to the amount of Rs.11,191/- to work out the compensation. Therefore, I add this amount to the amount of salary of the deceased and find out Rs.16,226/- per month as income of the deceased.
In this case, the claimants are two and, therefore, 1/3rd should be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased on himself. 2/3rd of this salary is the dependency of the claimants, which multiplied with 12, comes to Rs.1,29,804/-. When it is further multiplied with 9, the suitable multiplier in this case, the amount comes to Rs.11,68,236/-. Adding to this amount, a sum of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by learned Tribunal for funeral expenses and loss of estate, I find the claimants -appellants to be entitled to Rs.11,78,236/- as compensation on the death of Ekam Singh.
In the result, the appeal filed by the insurer bearing FAO No. 5452 of 2012 fails and is dismissed while the appeal filed by the claimants bearing FAO No. 5462 of 2012 is allowed Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.07 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. Os. No. 5452 and 5462 of 2012 -8- enhancing the compensation from Rs.8,15,752 to Rs.11,78,236/-, which shall be payable to the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization thereof and in the proportion given by the Tribunal.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 02.08.2013 dinesh Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.07 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh