Punjab-Haryana High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Limited vs Paramjit Kaur And Others on 7 February, 2014
FAO NO. 7064 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
XOBJC NO. 17 OF 2014 IN/AND
FAO NO. 7064 of 2011
DECIDED ON : 07.02.2014
Oriental Insurance Co. Limited
...Appellant
versus
Paramjit Kaur and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 4-cross objectors.
Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No.5 and 6.
*****
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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)
C.M. Nos.2215-CII & 2428-CII of 2014 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the civil miscellaneous applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions. The documents and the X-objection bearing No.17-CII are taken on record.
Main Case:-
Manoj Kumar 2014.03.24 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO NO. 7064 of 2011 2
This appeal has been filed by the insurance company against the award dated 6.09.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa. X-objection has also been filed by the claimants for the enhancement of compensation.
The brief facts of this case are that on 14.10.2009 Parabhjit Singh (since deceased) along with his friend Rajesh were going to Mandi Dabwali from Hansi in a car bearing registration No.HR21-D/4041. The said car was being driven by Rajesh at a moderate speed. Sandeep Sandhu and Kadam Singh in their vehicle No.HR-20-R-0034 were also following the aforesaid car. At about 1/1.30 a.m. when they reached near a canal in the area of village Odhan than a Canter No.PB-03N-9692 (hereinafter called offending vehicle) came from opposite direction being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently and struck against the driver side of the car of Rajesh as a result of which Rajesh and Parabjit (husband of petitioner No.1) entrapped into the car badly and died at the spot due to the injuries sustained by them in this accident. The respondent No.1 after causing the accident fled away from the spot while leaving his canter on the spot.
The Tribunal assessed the income at `4000/- P.M. and took the dependency as `3000/- P.M and applied the multiplier of 16. The Tribunal further awarded an amount of `10,000/- towards funeral expenses and total compensation awarded was `5,86,000/- along with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the present claim petition till the realization.
Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4-cross Manoj Kumar 2014.03.24 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO NO. 7064 of 2011 3 objectors has argued that the eye witness had appeared in the case relating to Rajesh and the insurance company did not challenge the finding of that case and the award has become final. This fact has been accepted by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the circumstances, it now does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to argue that the negligence of the accident is disputed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has further argued that multiplier of 15 has to be applied instead of 16 as the deceased was 38 years at the time of death as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298.
I find this to be indeed so. Consequently, I reduce the multiplier to 15.
Learned counsel for the respondents-cross objectors has argued that nothing has been awarded on account of loss of consortium and has relied upon Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others reported as 2013(9) SCC 54. He has further argued that 50% has to be added to the income on account of future prospects.
Learned counsel for the respondents-cross objectors has further argued that under conventional heads only an amount of ` 10,000/- has been awarded and has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others, (2013-3) PLR 776.
Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others' case (supra) granted a total amount of `1 lac towards loss of consortium to Manoj Kumar 2014.03.24 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO NO. 7064 of 2011 4 the widow and `1 lac to three minor children for loss of care and guidance.
Learned counsel for the respondents-Cross objectors, on the other hand, has contended that in Vimal Kanwar and others' case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded a sum of `1 lac to the widow and a sum of `2 lac to the minor girl on account of loss of love and affection, and another sum of `1 lac towards loss of consortium to the widow and `1 lac to the mother.
Keeping in view the entire conspectus of facts, I award ` 50,000/- for loss of love and affection and ` 50,000/- for loss of consortium to the appellant No.1-widow, `1,00,000/- to the daughter- appellant No.2 and `50,000/- to the mother-appellant No.3 for loss of love and affection. I also add future prospects in the income with the addition of 50% in view of the observations made 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. For the purpose of funeral expenses, I award `15,000/- more.
Apart from the individually enhanced amount the entire enhanced amount would go to the share of the appellants No. 1 and 2 in the same proportion as devised by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the management of the compensation amount would be as per the direction of the Tribunal.
X-objection is disposed of in the above terms.
February 07, 2014 (AJAY TEWARI)
Manoj Bhutani JUDGE
Manoj Kumar
2014.03.24 09:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document