Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1080 (PNJ)

KRISHNA RANI v. HARI CHAND

2013-08-16

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2013
JUDGMENT : VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. C.M. No. 1072-CII of 2011 1. There is an application for condoning the delay of 528 days in filing the appeal. On the first glimpse, the delay appears to be inordinate. However, looking to the explanation furnished for the same, there appears an effort on the part of the claimants to get the award corrected. The order correcting the award was made on 22.5.2010 and, thus, most of the delay has occurred on account of the time taken by the Tribunal in correcting the award. The time spent thereafter is said to have been due to financial constraint. The application is duly supported by an affidavit. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, on the other hand, has filed no reply to the application. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, I accept the application and condone the delay in filing the appeal. F.A.O. No. 288 of 2011 This is an appeal brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. Krishna Rani and others filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on the death of Neena Kaur, who died in a road side accident that took place on 15.10.2005. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana (for short "the Tribunal"), vide award dated 12.5.2009 has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,30,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. Neena Kaur suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 15.10.2005. It is claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by giving tuitions and by doing private job. Neena Kaur is claimed to be 26 years old. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was spent on the last rites of the deceased. A sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- is claimed as compensation. 2. The aforesaid averments have been denied by the respondents. They have denied the averments of the claimants regarding the age, occupation or income of the deceased. They have denied the claimants to deserve a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Learned Tribunal found a sum of Rs. 5000/- to be the salary of the deceased. The dependency of the claimants was taken at Rs. 3000/- per month and after multiplying the same with 12, annual dependency was found at Rs. 36,000/-. Multiplying the same with 12, the multiplier found suitable in this case, a sum of Rs. 3. Learned Tribunal found a sum of Rs. 5000/- to be the salary of the deceased. The dependency of the claimants was taken at Rs. 3000/- per month and after multiplying the same with 12, annual dependency was found at Rs. 36,000/-. Multiplying the same with 12, the multiplier found suitable in this case, a sum of Rs. 4,32,000/- was found to be lost by the claimants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the deceased Neena Kaur was a working woman and was having an income of Rs. 5000/- per month. According to him, the husband, parents and brother of the deceased are the claimants. According to him, instead of 17, the multiplier of 12 is adopted in this case. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has not been right in taking the dependency at Rs. 3000/-per month. According to him, the dependency is assessed without applying the suitable deduction. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, has submitted on the other hand that compensation has been rightly assessed by learned Tribunal. According to him, no enhancement is due thereto for any reason. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 had no quarrel with the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 5000/- per month. He has also admitted that learned Tribunal was not justified in deducting Rs. 2000/- therefrom and assessing Rs. 3000/- as the dependency of the claimants. 7. Taking into account the fact that the husband and the parents of the deceased are the claimants besides her brother, I notice that the deceased was living with her parents at her parental home. When she was living with her parents for some reason, the parents would be taken as her dependents but her brother cannot be taken as her dependent. Hence, the dependent family members of the deceased are 3. I am of the opinion in view of this fact that the deduction of 1/3rd thereto would be required to assess the dependency of the claimants. The annual dependency of the claimants would be assessed by taking 1/3rd from the income of the deceased and multiplying the remainder with 12 and it comes to Rs. 40,000/-. The deceased had been 26 years of age. Her husband is one of the claimants and it is, therefore, not a case of unmarried person. The annual dependency of the claimants would be assessed by taking 1/3rd from the income of the deceased and multiplying the remainder with 12 and it comes to Rs. 40,000/-. The deceased had been 26 years of age. Her husband is one of the claimants and it is, therefore, not a case of unmarried person. The multiplier would be taken on the basis of the age of the deceased and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier suitable in this case would be of 17. Multiplying the annual dependency with 17, the amount lost by the claimants comes to Rs. 6,80,000/- to which a sum of Rs. 20,000/- caarlan be added as compensation for the loss of estate, loss of consortium and expenses on the last rites. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- is found as compensation payable to the claimants-appellants. As a result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 4,30,000/- to Rs. 7,00,000/-. The claimants shall get this amount with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization thereof. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- would go to the share of appellant No. 3 and a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- each would go to the share of appellant No. 1 and 2 and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- would go to the share of respondent No. 4.