Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Palo Devi And Others vs Gurmukh Singh And Others on 12 February, 2014
Author: Anita Chaudhry
Bench: Anita Chaudhry
FAO No.4816 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.4816 of 2012 (O&M).
Date of Decision: February 12, 2014.
Smt. Palo Devi and others
..Appellant(s)
Versus
Gurmukh Singh and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No
Present: Mr. Sidharth Batra, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.3-insurance company.
*****
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
1. This is an appeal preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) who awarded compensation of Rs.6,90,400/- to claimants No.1 to 5.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 01.10.2010, Ram Phal was coming from Bighar to Fatehabad in a four wheeler driven by him. Rakesh, Bansi and Om Parkash were also accompanying him in the four wheeler. When the vehicle was ahead of the petrol pump, Om Parkash, Sunil 2014.02.24 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.4816 of 2012 (O&M) -2- father of Ram Phal got down. Meanwhile, a bus bearing registration no.HR-57-1485 driven by Gurmukh Singh respondent no.1 came and hit the four wheeler. The occupants of the four wheeler sustained injuries and Ram Phal died on the spot. A case was got registered by Om Parkash.
3. As usual, the respondents denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. The insurance company also disputed its liability.
4. The Tribunal held respondent no.1 responsible for the accident and assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs.4,200/- per month treating him as a labourer, applying the multiplier of 18, calculated the compensation @ Rs.6,80,400/- and Rs.10,000/- were added on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate.
5. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that Ram Phal was running a grocery store and had an income of Rs.10,000/- per month though he was not paying taxes but he was maintaining books of account which had been adduced in evidence and were not taken into account while calculating his income. It was urged that 50% should be added to the income towards future prospects as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others (2012)6 SCC 421 and they were also entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- on Sunil 2014.02.24 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.4816 of 2012 (O&M) -3- account of loss of care and guidance for the minor children. Reliance was also placed upon Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others 2013(2) RCR (Civil) 945, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali and others 2012(3) RCR Civil 818, Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir and others 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 170, Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others 2012(2) RCR(Civil) 882 and Sunil Sharma and others Vs. Bachitar Singh and others 2011(2) RCR (Civil) 708.
6. The submission on behalf of respondent-insurance company was that the documents produced by the claimants are not books of account which were regularly maintained and give no indication about the income of the deceased and not even a guess work can be made as it does not refer to the weight or the amount of the commodities nor it refers to the fact whether it was purchased or sold and such registers can easily be prepared. It was urged that the deceased was 26 years old, therefore, the multiplier should have been 17 instead of 18.
7. So far as the income is concerned, it is not possible to prove the submission laid by the appellants. The documents produced by the appellants could not have been relied upon as they only give the names of certain Sunil 2014.02.24 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.4816 of 2012 (O&M) -4- commodities and a date is indicated against it without reference to the weight or the amount nor it mentions that the commodities had been sold or purchased. The claimants had led no evidence to show that the deceased was maintaining any saving account. There was no evidence that he has been purchasing commodities. He was not filing income-tax returns and rightly the documents were rejected by the Tribunal. So far as the addition to the income on account of future prospects, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra) had approved the principle regarding addition to the actual income as was done in the case of salaried persons as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(6) SCC 121.
8. In Rajesh Vs. Rajbir's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down that where the deceased-victim was below 40 years of age then there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income. While computing future prospects in this case as Ram Phal was stated to be 26 years old, therefore, an addition of 50% in the income has to be made and the total income would come to Rs.6,300/- per month. The claimants had impleaded the parents as well. The Tribunal had observed that only petitioner Nos.1 to 5 were dependent upon the income of the deceased and not the father. It has been seen that the number of family members are added so as to get Sunil 2014.02.24 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.4816 of 2012 (O&M) -5- higher deduction towards personal expenses. In this case, the deduction of 1/4th will have to be made and the amount available for the family would be Rs.4,725/- per month. The annual contribution towards family would come to Rs.56,700/. Since Ram Phal was 26 years old, a multiplier of 17 would have to be applied and the compensation would work out to Rs.9,63,900/-. Besides this, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is added on account of loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- is added as funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- is added for loss of love and care for the children. A sum of Rs.11,88,900/- is the total compensation that was payable. The amount of compensation of Rs.6,90,400/- already awarded by the Tribunal would be deducted and the remaining amount would be paid to the appellants with interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the appeal till its realization. Share of minors shall be deposited as fixed term deposit in a nationalized bank till the age of their majority. However, interest part can be released for welfare of minors.
The appeal is partly allowed. Lower court record be sent back.
(ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE February 12, 2014 sunil Sunil 2014.02.24 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document