Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neeraj Devi & Ors vs Suresh Kumar & Ors on 21 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009185
Page 1 of 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
246 FAO-9-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.01.2025
Smt. Neeraj Devi & Others
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Suresh Kumar & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Shivam Sharma,, Advocate for
Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.
Ms. Suman Jain,, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Jain, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.29,71,200 Rs.29,71,200/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal") vide Award dated 12.04.2017 passed in claim petition MACP Case No.75 of 2016 filed by the claimants/appellants appellants herein under Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The aforesaid compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum from from the date of filing the claim petition till actual deposit of the same. All the three respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. The 3 claimants/appellants are the widow and parents of the deceased deceased-Sanjeev Kumar.
1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-01-2025 09:49:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009185 Page 2 of 5
2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased-Sanjeev Sanjeev Kumar had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 04.03.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.HP No.HP-12B-9657 (hereinafter referred to as "the "the offending vehicle vehicle") by respondent No.1.
The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3.
3.1 Learned counsel for the appellant appellants submits that the consortium granted to the appellants deserves to be enhanced. 3.2 It is further submitted that the amounts granted under various heads is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellants and submits that compensation has been granted in a just and fair manner and therefore, prays for dismissal of the present appeal.
5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail.
7. Perusal of record of the case shows that o on the basis of oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, the learned Tribunal returned the finding that the deceased had died due to the injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicular accident that took 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-01-2025 09:49:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009185 Page 3 of 5 place on 04.03.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1 and the same was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The respondents were accordingly held liable to pay the awarded compensation, jointly and severally. 8.1. It was the case of the appellants/claimants before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was working as Service Engineer with Pal Engineers, SCO 133, Block-A, Block A, MI Plaza, Jharmari, Baddi, District Solan and getting Rs.14,250/-
Rs.14,250/ per month.. On the basis of evide evidence led by the claimants i.e. appointment letter (Ex.P10), copy of attendance register (Ex.P11),, salary slip (Ex.P6), certificate issued by Pal Engineers (Ex.P7), Form-16 16 (Ex.P8), (Ex.P8) the learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased to be Rs.13,200/-
Rs.13,200/ per month.
8.2 The age of the deceased was determined to be 25 years on the basis of Post-Mortem Post Report (Ex.P13) (Ex.P13); and future prospects of 50% were added to the income of the decease deceased; and monthly income of the deceased was calculated as Rs.19,800/ Rs.19,800/- (Rs.13,200/- + Rs.6,600/-). It may be pointed out that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, future prospects could have been added @ 40%, however, have been added at the excessive rate of 50%. 8.3 Deduction of 1/3rd was correctly made as there were 3 dependents. Thus, monthly dependency in favour of claimants is arrived at Rs.13,200/-
Rs.13,200/ (Rs.19,800/- - Rs.6,600/-).
). Annual dependency would thus be Rs.1,58,400/-
Rs.1,58,400/ (Rs.13,200/- x 12).
3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-01-2025 09:49:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009185 Page 4 of 5 8.4 Learned Tribunal correctly applied the multiplier of 18. Thus, 28,51,200/-
28,51,200/ (Rs.1,58,400/- x 18).
8.5 Appellant No.1/widow was also granted Rs.1 lakh towards loss of consortium.
8.6 Rs.20,000/- was also granted towards funeral expenses.
8.7 Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.
Rs.29,71,200/-.
9. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that consortium granted to the appellants is on the lower side as each of the claimants was entitled to consortium of Rs.1 lakh each. I find the said argument to be misplaced. As per recent judgments of the Hon'ble "Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh Supreme Court in "Shri Rawat & Others"
Others Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023 2412/2023 and "Mehmooda Bee & Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd." (@ SLP (C) No.16767 of 2022) Bebi Giri Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and "Bebi Ltd." Civil Appeal No.6551 of 2022, a total sum of Rs.77,000/-
Rs.77,000/ is to be granted under the conventional heads.
10. From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellant. Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, I find no case is made out which merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the compensation awarded to the 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-01-2025 09:49:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009185 Page 5 of 5 appellant to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter-12 Chapter of the Act is a beneficial al legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon'ble Supreme Court in ''State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur' Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and 'Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty', (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. Thus, all that has to be determi determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is 'just'. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very 'just' compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In the case of KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas 1994 Volume Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for deter determining the compensation.
11. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed.
12. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
21.01.2025 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 25-01-2025 09:49:56 :::