Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Manjeet Kaur vs Sukhdev Raj And Others on 26 August, 2013
F.A.O. No. 5287 of 2011 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 5287 of 2011 [O&M]
Date of Decision: August 26th, 2013
Smt. Manjeet Kaur
.... Appellant
Versus
Sukhdev Raj and others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate,
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
This is an appeal by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. Smt. Manjeet Kaur, the claimant-appellant had filed a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 seeking compensation in a sum of ` 20.00 lakhs for the death of Boota Singh that occurred in a roadside accident that took place on 9.3.2010. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mansa (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 21.4.2011 has allowed the claim petition in a sum of ` 2,13,000/-.
Boota Singh [deceased] had been 52 years of age. He was working as a driver on a truck bearing registration No. PB-02-AS-9605 Prakash Som 2013.09.03 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O. No. 5287 of 2011 2 ..
and was earning a sum of ` 8,000/- per month. Claiming herself to be wife of the deceased, the claimant has sought a sum of ` 20.00 lakhs as compensation.
Respondents No.1 and 2 had been proceeded against ex- parte. Respondent No.3, the insurer contested the claim petition and has denied the averments of the claimant. The claimant is denied to deserve a sum of ` 20.00 lakhs as compensation.
Learned Tribunal treated the deceased as a labourer and took his income at Rs.3,000/- per month. He has also applied the deduction of one half to this income and assessed a sum of `18,000/- as annual dependency of the claimant. Taking the multiplier of 11 to be suitable in this case, a sum of `1,98,000/- was found as the amount lost by the claimants in the death of Boota Singh. Adding to it a sum of `15,000/- under conventional heads, a sum of `2,13,000/- has been awarded as compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal did not add anything to the income of the deceased in the name of future prospects. According to him, as per the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 ACJ 1403, 15% of the income has to be added as future prospects in case the victim was above the age of 50 years and was below the age of 60 years. According to him, even the income of the deceased has been taken at a lower side. According to him, the deduction of one half is also contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77.
Prakash Som 2013.09.03 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O. No. 5287 of 2011 3
..
Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has submitted, on the other hand, that the compensation assessed by learned Tribunal is just and proper. According to him, no enhancement is due to the compensation assessed by the Tribunal in this case.
The deceased had been driving truck at the time of the accident. The accident took place on 9.3.2010. Taking the income of the deceased, who was a driver, at `3,000/- appears to be improper. Learned Tribunal was not justified in taking his income at `3,000/- per month. A driver, on the date of accident, could not be believed to be getting less than `5,000/- per month. Thus, the income of the deceased is taken as `5,000/- per month.
Hon`ble Supreme Court in Rajesh's case [supra] has laid down that the addition should be of 15% in the case where the victim has been between the age of 50 and 60 years so as to make his compensation equitably fair and reasonable. Adding 15% to it, a sum of `5,750/- is found to be the monthly income of the deceased.
Coming to the deduction, it has been laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case [supra] that in case the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd. The next group of deduction is where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3. It shows that even if the claimant is one and that is the wife, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be half. The monthly dependency of the claimant, thus, comes to `2,875/- which multiplied with 12, brings the annual dependency at ` 34,500/-.
The deceased has been 52 years of age. Learned Tribunal has Prakash Som 2013.09.03 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O. No. 5287 of 2011 4 ..
taken him to be of that age and has rightly taken the multiplier of 11 for assessing compensation in this case. Multiplying the annual dependency with 11, I find a sum of ` 3,79,500/- as the amount lost by the claimant in the death of her husband Boota Singh. Adding to it a sum of ` 20,000/- as compensation under the conventional heads, I assess a sum of `3,99,500/- as compensation in favour of the claimant for the death of Boota Singh in the aforesaid accident.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from `2,13,000/- to `3,99,500/- with other terms regarding rate of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE August 26th, 2013 som Prakash Som 2013.09.03 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document