Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sheela And Others vs Madan Lal And Others on 20 January, 2014
FAO No. 1608 of 1993(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 20.01.2014
FAO No. 1608 of 1993(O&M)
Sheela and others. ....Appellants
versus
Madan Lal and others ...... Respondents
FAO No. 935 of 1993
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant
versus
Sheela and others .. .....Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.D.D.Gupta, Advocate
for the appellants in FAO 1608 of 1993
Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate
for the Oriental Insurance Company.
Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate
for National Insurance Company.
****
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 cross appeals. FAO No. 1608 of 1993 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and FAO No. 935 Nagpal Sunita 2014.02.21 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No. 1608 of 1993(O&M) 2 of 1993 has been filed by the insurance company challenging the award on the ground that the driving of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Since both the appeals have arisen out of a common award, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For ready reference facts are being taken from FAO No. 1608 of 1993.
The facts in brief are that on 09.12.1991 at about 2.35 a.m. Dharambir(since deceased) was going in a tractor bearing No.HR-14-0739 loaded with fodder for selling the same at Nangloi. He was sitting in the tractor whereas fodder was loaded in the trolley attached to it. One Zile Singh was also with him. When they reached near Makrauli turning on the night intervening 9/10.12.1991, a truck bearing registration No. HRO-3116 came from opposite side and hit the tractor due to which Dharambir and Zile Singh sustained injuries and Dharambir died. The deceased used to sell fodder and earn Rs. 2400/- per month. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of truck driver-respondent No.3. The income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 1000/- per month and after deducting personal expenses to the tune of Rs. 300/-, the monthly dependency of the claimants on him was assessed at Rs. 700. Taking his age as 25-26 years as per the report of post mortem, multiplier of `16' was applied and in this way the total amount of compensation awarded to the claimants was Rs. 1,34,400/-.
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Tribunal has erred in not granting an increase towards future prospects. As per the age of the deceased, future prospects to the extent of 50% must have been awarded. In this regard reliance has been placed on Rajesh and others v. Nagpal Sunita 2014.02.21 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No. 1608 of 1993(O&M) 3 Rajbir Singh and others reported as 2013 (9) SCC 54.
To controvert this argument of learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the insurance company has relied upon Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another reported as 2013 AIR SC(Civil) 1731. This point has been discussed in detail by this Court in FAO No. 2990 of 2011, Manjit Kaur and others v. Ramesh Kumar and others decided on 08.01.2014. Adopting the same analogy I grant an increase of 50% towards future prospects in the monthly income of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the deceased was 25 years of age and, therefore, multiplier of 16 was wrongly applied. I find this to be correct. As per the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, 2009 ACJ 1298 the multiplier of 18 should have been applied. Consequently I change the multiplier from 16 to 18.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that nothing has been awarded under the conventional heads and has relied upon Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013(9) SCC 54 and Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others, 2013(7) ACJ 476.
As regards compensation regarding loss of love and affection, counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others' case (supra) granted a total amount of Rs.1 lac towards loss of consortium to the widow and Rs. 1 lac to three minor children for loss of care and guidance.
Counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, has contended that in Vimal Kanwar and others' case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court Nagpal Sunita 2014.02.21 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No. 1608 of 1993(O&M) 4 awarded a sum of Rs.1 lac to the widow and a sum of Rs. 2 lac to the minor girl on account of loss of love and affection, and another sum of Rs.1 lac towards loss of consortium to the widow.
Consequently, I award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the wife for loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, Rs. 25,000/- to the mother on account of loss of love and affection and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of funeral expenses.
Another argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal awarded total amount of Rs.1,34,400/-out of which Rs. 67, 200/- were awarded to the wife i.e. claimant No.1 and Rs. 33,600/- to the mother i.e. claimant No.2. In this way the amount awarded was only Rs. 1,00,800/- and, therefore, there is an unexplained gap of Rs. 33,600/- which has not been awarded to any body. I find that this is indeed so. The said amount of Rs. 33,600/- shall also be payable to the appellants. Apart from the individual amounts awarded the general enhancement shall be paid to the appellants in the ratio of 2:1.
The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. The appellant No.3, father of the deceased is not entitled to any compensation because he is neither a class-I heir nor was he a party before the Tribunal.
With the modification in the award, the appeal is allowed to the above extent.
FAO No. 935 of 1993
The only ground taken in the present appeal filed by the Nagpal Sunita 2014.02.21 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No. 1608 of 1993(O&M) 5 insurance company is that the licence of the driver of Tuck No. HRO-3116 namely Ramesh was not valid. The Tribunal has rightly rejected this contention by holding that the report of Colonel Pirthi Pal Singh is not a document which can help the driver without the said person having been examined as a witness. The Tribunal has also found that the driver had produced the renewed driving licence. In the circumstances the appeal of he insurance company is dismissed.
( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE January 20, 2014 sunita Nagpal Sunita 2014.02.21 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document