Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Kaur & Ors vs Parveen Kumar & Ors on 10 July, 2019
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
F.A.O No. 170 of 2006 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O No. 170 of 2006
Date of decision:- 10.07.2019
Baljit Kaur and ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Parveen Kumar and ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:- None for the appellants
Mr. Virender Soni, Advocate for
Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate
for the Insurance Company.
RITU BAHRI J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants- appellants, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short, 'the Tribunal') to the tune of Rs.01,84,800/- vide impugned award dated 28.07.2005 on account of death of Harbhajan Singh aged 52 years on 31.03.2003.
2. As per the Tribunal, the deceased-Harbhajan Singh in the present case was 52 years old at the time of the accident. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.2100/- per month and 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses and thereafter, applied the multiplier of 11, in view of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) Page 77. The total compensation awarded to the claimants was Rs.01,84,800/-.
3. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 20-10-2019 15:23:50 ::: F.A.O No. 170 of 2006 -2- the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to the enhanced, as the Tribunal has not awarded future prospects and further nothing has been awarded under conventional heads.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- driver has vehemently opposed the present appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal so the accident in question is not in dispute, as the accident had been duly proved by the claimants/appellants.
7. Reference at this stage can be made to a recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, passed in Spl Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on October 31, 2017 wherein the issue with regard to awarding of amount under the conventional heads has been authoritatively decided, while observing as under :-
"54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/-loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 20-10-2019 15:23:50 ::: F.A.O No. 170 of 2006 -3- determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.".
8. In the present case, the compensation is being reassessed as per the judgments mentioned above:-
Sr. Heads Calculations
No.
(i) Income Rs.2100/- per month
(ii) 10% of (i) above to be added as Rs.2100+Rs.210=Rs.2310/- per month
future prospects=
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 20-10-2019 15:23:50 :::
F.A.O No. 170 of 2006 -4-
Sr. Heads Calculations
No.
(iii) 1/4th of (ii) deducted as personal Rs.2310-Rs.577=Rs.1733/- per month
expenses of the deceased=
(iv) Compensation after multiplier of Rs.1733X 12 X 11= Rs.02,28,756/-
11 is applied
(v) Conventional heads (Loss of Rs.70,000/-
estate and funeral expenses, loss
of consortium)
(vi) Total Compensation awarded Rs.2,98,756/-
Enhanced amount of 298756-184800=Rs.1,13,956/-
compensation (rounded off to Rs.1,14,000/-)
09. The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,14,000/- shall be payable within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The appellants shall also get interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition in view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4528-2019 titled as Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara vs. Shyam Singh Varma and ors, decided on 01.05.2019. The remaining conditions of disbursal of amount and recovery rights shall remain unaltered.
10. Accordingly, the award stands modified to the above extent and the present appeal is partly allowed.
10.07.2019 (RITU BAHRI)
G Arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 20-10-2019 15:23:50 :::