Punjab-Haryana High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Om Prabha And Others on 27 March, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No. 3695 of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Cross-Objection No. 53 CII of 2003 and
FAO No. 3695 of 2003 (O&M)
Date of decision: March 27, 2014
United India Insurance Company Limited
...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Om Prabha and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
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?
Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate,
for respondents No. 1 to 4 and 7.
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
Respondents No. 5 and 6 are claimants and they have common interest with the other claimants, who have been served. Notice to them is, therefore, dispensed with. 8th respondent served through wife. Service deemed sufficient.
The appeal by the insurance company is on the ground of negligence and the quantum. It was a case of collision of a scooter with the tractor which was coming behind. The driver of the tractor who was examined admitted the collision but stated that there was a vehicle coming from the opposite direction with head light and he was blinded by the light and he did not notice the collision till a person was hit on the left side of the tractor and he fell down. The manner in which the evidence is given itself is Singh Prem 2014.04.04 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No. 3695 of 2003 2 a proof of negligence for a driver himself cannot be allowed to be blinded by the light and he ought to have applied the skill of driving in such a way, it does not cause harm by his handicap. I, therefore, find no error in the assessment made by the Tribunal that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor.
On the issue of quantum there is also Cross-Objections No. 53 CII of 2003 at the instance of the claimants. The deceased was a reader employed in the court aged 45 years. The salary brought on record was that he was earning `8436/-. Making provision for 30% increase and also applying ¼ cut for personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 14, I will re-work the assessment as under:-
Fatal Accident Bharat Singh Date of accident Age 45 Occupation Reader Claimants: Widow, three minor children Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Sr. No. Amount (`) Amount (`) 1 Income 2 Add, 30% of increase 8225.10 3 Deduction 1/4 4 Multiplicand 98701.20 5 Multiplier 14 6 Loss of dependence 13,81,816 7 Medical expenses 8 Loss of Consortium 4,00,000 9 Loss to estate 2500 10 Funeral Expenses 25000 Total 18,09,316.80 I have applied the scales of compensation for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection in the manner laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajesh and others Versus Rajbir and others 2013 (9) SCC
54. The total compensation payable would be `18,09,316.80, which is Singh Prem 2014.04.04 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No. 3695 of 2003 3 rounded off to `18,09,300/-. The amount will be distributed in the ratio of 2:2:2:2:1:1. The parents share of the amount shall be immediately disbursed. As regards the claim of the widow, 80% of the amount is directed to be released and 20% of the amount will be invested after splitting the amount into three portions, the 1st portion for the period of one year, 2nd portion for a period of two years and the 3rd portion for a period of three years. As far as the minors are concerned, 75% of the amount will be paid on attaining majority and rest of 25% of each of the minors' share will be split in three portions each with similar nature of deposit as indicated above for the wife. The deposits will be made through the Tribunal with specific instructions for disbursal of the amount directly to the claimants under the advice to the Tribunal and it shall not be necessary for the claimants to route withdrawal through the Tribunal. No premature withdrawal shall be permitted except on specific direction given by the Tribunal for the reasons to be set forth in the order secured on affidavit of the party.
The appeal of the insurance company is dismissed and the cross-objections are allowed on the above terms.
March 27, 2014 (K.KANNAN)
prem JUDGE
Singh Prem
2014.04.04 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh