Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nanak Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 January, 2014
FAO No.5181 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No.5181 of 2010
Date of decision : 17.01.2014
Nanak Singh and another ...... Appellants
versus
State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate
for the appellants.
Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate
for Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate
for the respondent No.2.
***
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)
This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the award dated 04.11.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana awarding compensation of `5,80,000/- alongwith the interest of 7.5% p.a. on account of death of Tejinderpal Singh aged 25 years. The claimants are parents of the deceased.
Brief facts are that on 21.02.2007 the deceased was going from Ludhiana to Amritsar alongwith his band party on a car. Around 6.30 A.M. one bus bearing No.PB-11-S-5478 was seen driven by Baljeet Singh (since deceased) in a rash and negligent manner and the driver of the bus in trying to Sharma Ashish 2014.02.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5181 of 2010 -2- overtake the truck hit the car of the band party from its front side as a result of which Tejinderpal Singh and other sitting in the car died.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-PRTC has argued that actually the present is a case where there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus but it is a case of contributory negligence.
I find that the evidence led by the respondent No.2-PRTC does not support this argument. Consequently, I reject this argument.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-PRTC has further argued that the Tribunal has considered only the age of the deceased while the age of the claimant has to be kept in mind for the purpose of multiplier and has relied upon the judgments in U.P. State Transport Corportation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others (1996) 4 SCC 362, Ramesh Singla and others v. Satbir Singh and another 2008 (1) SCC 667 and Shakti Devi v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. and another 2010 (14) SCC 575, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down a different provision by stating that the multiplier should be applied after taking into the consideration the age of the claimants.
Learned counsel for the appellants has countered by arguing that the multiplier of 18 has to be applied instead of 16 according to the age of the deceased. He has further argued that in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2001) 6 SCC 121, P.S.Somanathan and others v. District Insurance Officer and another (2011) 3 SCC 566 and Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 2012 ACJ 2002; the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that only the age of the deceased should be kept into Sharma Ashish 2014.02.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5181 of 2010 -3- consideration while fixing the multiplier.
In my opinion, while adopting a multiplier, the age of the deceased as well as the age group of the claimants is a valid consideration. The expectancy of life of deceased is to be taken into consideration to arrive at a conclusion as to for how many years he could have supported the claimants. So far as the claimants are concerned their age-group is required to be considered to arrive at a conclusion as to for how many years they would have survived and could have enjoyed the dependency allowance of the deceased. Keeping in view the conflicting decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and taking support from the decision of Division Bench of our High Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v Raj Rani 1998 (1) ACJ 175, in my considered view, the age of the deceased as well as the age group of the claimants is required to be taken into consideration while adopting a multiplier for determining the dependency to award compensation to the claimant.
In the present case, the claimants are about 55 and 50 years. Consequently, even though for the deceased who was 25 years old there would be multiplier of 18 yet keeping in view the age of the claimants the multiplier of 14 is ordered.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that as per the law laid down in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others reported as 2013(9) SCC 54, 50% has to be added to the income on account of future prospects.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that Sharma Ashish 2014.02.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5181 of 2010 -4- under conventional heads only an amount of `4,000/- 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 respondent No.2-PRTC 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 the widow and `1 lac to three minor children for loss of care and guidance.
Learned counsel for the appellants, 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.
Keeping in view the entire conspectus of facts, I award `1,00,000/- to the mother on account 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 and transportation, I award `21,000/- more. The enhanced amount shall be paid along with the same rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. It is made clear that apart from the amounts awarded individually the apportionment and the management of the enhanced compensation amount would be as per the direction of the Tribunal.
Sharma Ashish 2014.02.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5181 of 2010 -5-
Resultantly, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms and the award is modified accordingly.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI )
January 17, 2014 JUDGE
ashish
Sharma Ashish
2014.02.13 12:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh