Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bimla Devi vs Jagvinder And Ors on 21 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009296
Page 1 of 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
251 FAO-6704-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.01.2025
Smt. Bimla Devi
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Jagvinder & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Parveen Moudgil,, Advocate for
Ms. Sunita Nain,, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Pardeep Goyal,, Advocate
Ms. Simran, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present appeal has been filed by the sole claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.
Rs.12,94,840/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal") vide Award dated 15.05.2019 passed in claim petition No.184 of 2017 filed by the claimant/appellant appellant herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") Act"). The aforesaid compensation has been awarded along with interest @ 7.5 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation. All the three respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. The claimant/appellant is the mother of the deceased- Jitender @ Gugu.
Gugu
2. Brief facts acts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 27-01-2025 22:10:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009296 Page 2 of 6 deceased-Jitender Jitender @ Gugu had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 06.11.2017 due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No. No.HR-56A-9563 (hereinafter referred to as "the "the offending vehicle vehicle") by respondent No.1.
The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3.
3.1 Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation on the ground that nothing has been granted by way of transport expenses. It is submitted that the deceased had to be taken from the place of accident which was 15 kms away from the hospital in a private vehicle and therefore, transport expenses ought to have been granted.
3.2 It is further submitted that nothing has been granted by way of loss of estate.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and submits that the compensation as awarded to the appellant is just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, learned counsel ounsel prays for dismissal of the present appeal.
5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail.
2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 27-01-2025 22:10:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009296 Page 3 of 6
7. Perusal of record of the case shows that it was the pleaded case of the claimants that the deceased was doing agricultural work and dairy farming and was earning ₹25,000 per month. However, as there was no evidence, let an authentic proof brought on record by the claimants regarding the income and and occupation of the deceased, the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.8,200/ Rs.8,200/-
per month as that of an unskilled labourer as fixed by the Haryana Government. Even before this Court, nothing has been produced by the appellant to entail entail reassessment of the income of the deceased. 8.1 The age of the deceased was determined to be 22 years on the basis of Post-Mortem Post Report (Ex.P1). Thus, 40% of future prospects were added to the income of the deceased and monthly income was assessed as Rs.11,480/- (Rs.8,200/- + Rs.
Rs.40% of Rs.8,200/-).
8.2 Deduction of 50% was correctly made as there was 1 dependant ant taking monthly dependency to Rs.5,740/ Rs.5,740/-.
8.3 Learned Tribunal correctly applied the multiplier of 18 and calculated loss of o dependency as Rs.12,39,840/ Rs.12,39,840/- (Rs.5,740/- x 12 x 18). 8.4 Rs.15,000/- was also granted towards funeral expenses.
8.5 Rs.40,000/- was also granted towards filial consortium. 8.6 Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.
Rs.12,94,840/-.
9. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that nothing has been granted towards transportation expenses, or by way of 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 27-01-2025 22:10:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009296 Page 4 of 6 loss of estate. I find the said argument to be misplaced as, as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (SC) SLP No.13931 of 2017 titled as "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & Others"
Others", it has been held that where difference in compensation is about 4 to 5 per cent only, it does not warrant interference by this Court as, such variation in compensation tion is within permissible limits.
10. This above-said said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed by the Kerala High Court in ""The Managing Director, Divisional Controller Versus Alikutty and Others" Law Finder Doc Id # 1885188.
1885188 Relevant para 18 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-
"18. It is to be borne in mind, the accident occurred on 23,2,2019. It is more than 2 ½ years since the respondents 1 to 4 have been knocking at the doors of the Courts seeking compensation on account of thet death of the bread-winner.
winner. It is trite law that the Tribunal is permitted to do some guess work and also exercise its discretion to fix the reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any straightjacket strai tjacket formula based on mathematical precision.
prec In New India Assurance Company
Vs. Vinish Jain and Others [(2018) 3 SCC 619],
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the fixation of compensation is within permissible limits, the courts should normally not interfere with such awards".
11. Above said view has been reiterated by the Kerala High Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Adila and Court in "Reliance Others", Law Finder Doc ID # 1921609, paras 16 and 17 of which read as under:-
"16.
16. The other area of dispute is that the Tribunal after awarding compensation under the conventional heads has 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 27-01-2025 22:10:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009296 Page 5 of 6 awarded Rs.75,000/-
Rs.75,000/ towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/ awarded towards pain and sufferings. Rs.10,000/-
17. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v. Vineesh.J[2018 (3) SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Appellate Court can permit variation of plus or minus 4 to 5 percent."
12. No case law to the contrary has been cited by le learned counsel for the appellants.
appellants
13. From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellant. Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, I find no case is made out which merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the compensation awarded to the appellant to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter-12 Chapter of the Act is a beneficial al legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon'ble Supreme Court in ''State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur' Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and 'Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty', (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. Thus, all that has to be determi determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is 'just'. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very 'just' compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 27-01-2025 22:10:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009296 Page 6 of 6 Hon'ble Supreme Court Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In the case of KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas 1994 Volume Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for deter determining the compensation.
14. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed.
15. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
21.01.2025 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 27-01-2025 22:10:57 :::