Punjab-Haryana High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Dharampal And Others on 22 January, 2014
FAO No.5417 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision : 22.01.2014
1) F.A.O. No.5417 of 2013 (O&M)
The New India Assurance Company Limited ...... Appellant
versus
Dharampal and others ...... Respondents
2) F.A.O. No.5418 of 2013 (O&M)
The New India Assurance Company Limited ...... Appellant
versus
Tarsem Lal @ Tarsem Chand and others ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. R.S. Madan, Advocate
for the appellant-insurance company.
Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
These are two appeals. With the assistance of learned counsel both these appeals are deposed of with the common order. These appeals Sharma Ashish 2014.03.11 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5417 of 2013 (O&M) -2- have been filed by the insurance company against the award dated 01.08.2013 whereby the respondents No.1 and 2 have been awarded compensation of `12,04,000/- each.
Brief facts are that on 17.05.2012 deceased Kuldeep along with deceased Jaswinder were returning to their village after finishing their work as Mason. They were on motor cycle being driven by Kuldeep and Jaswinder Singh was his pillion rider. Gurjeet Singh (PW3) an eyewitness- brother of Kuldeep was following the motor cycle. When they reached near Masitan Tower, a pickup bearing registration No.HR-57/3271 came from the front direction being driven in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of the accident, both the occupants fell on the road and Kuldeep died on the spot whereas Jaswinder died while on the way to the hospital.
Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has argued that the Tribunal has erred in both the cases in assessing the income of the deceased to the tune of `10,500/- p.m., by simply relying on the testimony of alleged employer, Inderjit Singh (PW4). He has further argued that in the absence of any documentary proof that the deceased were earning `350/- per day, the Tribunal should have taken the income of the deceased as `5358/- p.m. as per the Minimum Wages applicable at the relevant time for Mason. Further he has argued that the Tribunal has erred in completely ignoring the age of the claimants for the purpose of working the multiplier.
Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2-claimants have argued that the Tribunal has not granted anything on account of future Sharma Ashish 2014.03.11 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5417 of 2013 (O&M) -3- prospects and even under the conventional heads the total amount granted by the Tribunal was only `70,000/- in each case which is very meager as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others, (2013-3) PLR 776 and as per the view taken by this Court in F.A.O. No.2990 of 2011, titled as Manjit Kaur and others vs. Ramesh Kumar and others, decided on 08.01.2014.
There is merit in both the sets of arguments. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company with regard to the earning has to be accepted. Consequently, it has to be held that the income of both the deceased was `5358/- p.m. However, as held in the above cited judgments an amount of 50% has to be given for future prospects that would make the monthly income of `8037/- p.m. in each case. I further hold that multiplier of 15 has to be applied instead of 18 in the case of deceased Kuldeep (in FAO No.5417 of 2013) and multiplier of 16 has to be applied instead of 18 in the case of deceased Jaswinder (in FAO No.5418 of 2013) in view of the observations made by this Court in F.A.O. No.5181 of 2010, titled as Nanak Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another, decided on 17.01.2014. In both the cases the deduction of 50% as adopted by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 that under the conventional heads the total amount of `1,25,000/- should be paid is accepted in each case. As per the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 the interest @ 6% p.a. is also highly inadequate. I find this argument to be correct also. The interest is increased to 9% p.a in each case. The management and apportionment of Sharma Ashish 2014.03.11 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5417 of 2013 (O&M) -4- the enhanced amount would be as per the direction of the Tribunal.
The appeals are disposed of in the above terms and the award is modified accordingly.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI )
January 22, 2014 JUDGE
ashish
Sharma Ashish
2014.03.11 10:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh