Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 328 (PNJ)

Vimlesh Jain v. State Of Haryana

2002-03-21

V.K.BALI

body2002
Judgment V. K. Bali, J. 1. By this order, I propose to dispose of objections raised by the applicant State of Haryana to the proposed order passed by the permanent Lok Adalat-II of this court dated 30.10.2000. Accompanying the application aforesaid is an application under sec. 5 of the Limitation act praying for condonation of delay of 426 days in filing the objections. 2. Operative part of the order dated 30.10.2000 passed by the permanent Lok adalat of this court reads as thus: "it is so ordered. The amount already paid under the order of the Tribunal would be adjusted. Two months time is allowed for making the payment. If the respondents do not give concurrence for the proposed order or choose to object thereto, they may move the High Court with the objection petition within 2 months for disposal of the appeal on merits according to law. " 3. Order of Lok Adalat is passed on settlement that may be arrived at between the parties. If the proposed order dated 30.10.2000 is not acceptable to the applicant herein, there was no need to pray for setting aside the same. 4. In the circumstances aforesaid, application for condoning the delay in filing the objections would also become infructuous. Be that as it may, inasmuch as the proposed order of the Lok Adalat is not acceptable, the same, if required to be technically set aside, is hereby set aside. 5. The learned counsel representing the applicant has been asked to address arguments on merits. All that he contends is that an excessive compensation commensurate to the facts of this case has been worked out by learned Tribunal. 6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the facts need to be noticed only in the context of only argument that has been raised by learned counsel representing the applicant. The accident had occurred on 5.8.1992. Naresh Chand Jain, aged about 56 years, who was working as Legal Advisor in Haryana Roadways, Sonepat, died in the accident. The claim petition for compensation was brought about by his widow, two major and one minor children. The claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,16,000 with 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation along with costs. Aggrieved of the inadequate compensation claimants filed this appeal. 7. The claim petition for compensation was brought about by his widow, two major and one minor children. The claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,16,000 with 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of filing of the application till realisation along with costs. Aggrieved of the inadequate compensation claimants filed this appeal. 7. It was admitted before the learned tribunal as also before learned Lok Adalat that income of the deceased was Rs.6,167 per month yet the Tribunal had taken the salary of the deceased at Rs.4,500. On the amount of Rs.4,500, a reduction of 1/3rd was made for personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency of the claimants was, thus, determined at Rs.3,000. A multiplier of 6 was applied and in the manner aforesaid, compensation was worked out, as fully detailed above. 8. The income of deceased was proved on the basis of the pay drawn by him and if that was Rs.6,167, same could not be taken as Rs.4,500, while determining the compensation. A unit system should have been applied in the present case, as it has since been approved by Hon ble Supreme court while making deduction for personal expenses of the deceased, i. e. , two units for the deceased, two for the widow, four for the major children and one for the minor child. There being, thus, nine units in all, 2/9th share of the income was required to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. By the method aforesaid, the total dependency of the claimants would work out at Rs.4,800. As per Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier should have been 8 and not 6. In the manner aforesaid, the compensation shall work out at Rs.4,60,800. An amount of rs.10,000 further needs to be added on account of funeral expenses and loss of consortium to the widow. This amount would be justifiable that needs to be paid to the claimants on account of death of naresh Chand Jain. 9. This court is conscious of the fact that the matter is being disposed of on merits and without hearing the appellants-claimants but that is being done for the only reason that insofar as claimants are concerned, they were satisfied with the compensation that was proposed by the learned Lok Adalat and the court is not reducing the same. 10. 9. This court is conscious of the fact that the matter is being disposed of on merits and without hearing the appellants-claimants but that is being done for the only reason that insofar as claimants are concerned, they were satisfied with the compensation that was proposed by the learned Lok Adalat and the court is not reducing the same. 10. In view of the discussion made above, this appeal is partly allowed. Order of Claims Tribunal dated 24.12.1993 is modified enhancing the compensation to rs.4,70,800, on which claimants shall be entitled to 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment is made. The minor, it appears, has already become major. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be shared by all claimants equally. Appeal partly allowed.