Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1742 (PNJ)

Balwinder Kaur v. Harpreet Singh

2012-12-04

M.JEYAPAUL

body2012
M. Jeyapaul, J.:— 1. The present appeal is preferred by the widow, son, daughter and father of the deceased Jaspal Singh, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. 2. Jaspal Singh died due to the injuries he sustained in the motor accident. In the absence of any evidence, a sum of Rs. 3000/- was fixed as the monthly income of the deceased Jaspal Singh. The age of the deceased was arrived at 45 by the Tribunal. The multiplier of 13 was applied. Only a sum of Rs. 2000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses. Nothing was awarded towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and transportation expenses. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that as per ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others 2012 (6) SCC 421 ” at least 30% of the income should have been added towards future prospects of the deceased while calculating the loss of dependency. It is his further submission that as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(6)SCC 121” the multiplier of 14 should have been applied instead of 13 to arrive at the loss of dependency. It is his further submission that some amount may be awarded towards loss of of consortium, loss of estate and transportation expenses. The funeral expenses may also be increased substantially, he would submit. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that in all cases 30% of income towards future prospects cannot be added. Only in a case where lesser income has been fixed by the Tribunal, it would be justifiable to add some amount towards future prospects. It is his further submission that interest at the rate of 6% on the award amount in case the Insurance Company had not deposited the award amount within three months has been ordered by the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-driver endorses the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 6. The death of Jaspal Singh has taken place on 8.5.2009. The minimum monthly income of Rs. 3000/- has been fixed by the Tribunal. It is not as if a fabulous monthly income was fixed by the Tribunal, inviting a criticism that 30% increase towards future prospects is unwarranted. 6. The death of Jaspal Singh has taken place on 8.5.2009. The minimum monthly income of Rs. 3000/- has been fixed by the Tribunal. It is not as if a fabulous monthly income was fixed by the Tribunal, inviting a criticism that 30% increase towards future prospects is unwarranted. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, 30% of increase will have to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, as a meagre monthly income of Rs. 3000/- was fixed in the absence of any evidence to establish the exact monthly income of the deceased. Such an increase of income is contemplated as the deceased would not have been earning the very same amount of Rs. 3000/- even after 14 years. The deceased had to earn not only to maintain himself but also the other dependents in the family. The cost of living in the future would increase leaps and bounds. Further, the price of the labour which is in vogue today would not be the same after 14 long years. Hence, there is justification for increase of 30% of income towards future prospects even in a case where a labourer hailing from an unorganized sector earing a meagre amount dies in the accident. Therefore, the Court is proposed to add 30% of the income of the deceased towards his future prospects. 7. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(6)SCC 121” in case of death of 45 years old man, the multiplier of 14 should be applied but the Tribunal has applied only 13 as multiplier to assess the loss of dependency. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, a meagre amount of Rs. 2000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses, I have proposed to raise it to Rs. 5000/-. The appellants are also entitled to some amount towards loss of estate and the 1st appellant is entitled to compensation towards loss of consortium. 9. The fact remains that the injured Jaspal Singh was brought from the place of accident to Morinda and thereafter to PGI for treatment, where he passed away. The dead body had been transported to his town in District Fatehgarh Sahib from PGI. At least a sum of Rs. 5000/- will have to be awarded towards transportation charges. 9. The fact remains that the injured Jaspal Singh was brought from the place of accident to Morinda and thereafter to PGI for treatment, where he passed away. The dead body had been transported to his town in District Fatehgarh Sahib from PGI. At least a sum of Rs. 5000/- will have to be awarded towards transportation charges. Very strangely the Tribunal awarded interest at 6% per annum, in case the insurance company fails to deposit the amount awarded by it. 10. Though, the right to get compensation for the claimants has arisen for the claimants from the date of the accident, in as much as the claimants had not chosen to make a demand prior to filing of the claim petition, the claimants are entitled to interest at least from the date when the claim petition has been filed till realization. 11. In view of the above a sum of Rs. 4,36,800/- ( Rs. 3000 + 30% thereof, being Rs. 900 = Rs. 3900 - 1/3rd thereof being Rs. 1300 = Rs. 2600 x 12 = Rs. 31,200 x 14 = Rs. 4,36,800/-) towards loss of dependency, Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5000/- towards transportation expenses, in aggregate a sum of Rs. 4,66,800/- with interest at the rate of 7. 5% per annum on the entire amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation is awarded. The mode of apportionment done by the Tribunal stands sustained. 12. With the above modification in the quantum of compensation the appeal stands allowed in part.