Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1281 (PNJ)

Chanchla Devi v. Sayed Hussain

2013-09-23

NAWAB SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) 1. Surjit Singh, aged 38 years, an Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioner at Kathua in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, died in a vehicular accident on October 15, 2008 due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.JK03A8540 by Sayed Hussain – respondent No.1, in the area of Hamirpur. 2. First Information Report No.139 dated October 15, 2008 (Exhibit P2) was registered by the Police of Police Station Raj Bagh, District Kathua. Post mortem examination was conducted on the body of Surjit Singh and the report is Exhibit P1. 3. Widow, two minor daughters and mother filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short `the Tribunal'). It was pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/per month by practising in Ayurvedic and Unani medicines. 4. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held the income of the deceased at Rs.3600/per month. 1/3was deducted towards his personal and living expenses and multiplier of 14 was applied. Loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.4,05,200/(2400x12x14). That apart, an amount of Rs.2000/was awarded towards funeral expenses. In all, compensation of Rs.4,05,200/along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum was awarded to the claimants – appellants. 5. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the claimants have filed the instant appeal. 6. Vide certificate Exhibit C3, issued by the Registrar of Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine, J & K State, it is proved that the deceased was a registered practitioner under the J & K Ayurvedic and Unani Practioners Act, 1959. Except the certificate, no concrete evidence was led by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. Be that as it may, he being a registered practioner of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines, the assessment of his income at Rs.3600/by the Tribunal was certainly on lower side. 7. Thus, when there is no substantial proof of income, keeping in mind the qualifications of the deceased, this Court has to opt for the guess work to assess his income, which is inherent in motor accident cases. Accordingly, his income is determined at Rs.5000/per month. 8. The family of the deceased consisted of five members, including himself, so, 1/4of his income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. The loss of dependency comes to Rs.3750/- (50001250) per month. Accordingly, his income is determined at Rs.5000/per month. 8. The family of the deceased consisted of five members, including himself, so, 1/4of his income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. The loss of dependency comes to Rs.3750/- (50001250) per month. Since, the deceased was in the age group of 36 to 40 years, in view of Smt.Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr 2009(6) SCC 121 , multiplier of 15 is to be applied. So, the loss of dependency is held to be Rs.6,75,000/(3750x12x15). 9. The Tribunal has also fell in error in not awarding any amount under the head of `loss of consortium'. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others 2013 ACJ 1403 a full Bench of the Supreme Court commented upon the meaning of consortium and awarded Rs.1 lac to the wife on account of death of her husband who was 33 years of age. 10. In the present case, since the deceased was 38 years old, this Court awards an amount Rs.1 lac under the head of `loss of consortium', exclusively payable to the widow of the deceased. The amount of Rs.2000/awarded towards funeral expenses is also on lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.5000/. 11. In view of above, the appeal is partly accepted and the Award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants are held entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,75,000+1,00,000+5,000= Rs.7,80,000/. The interest on the enhanced amount of Rs.3,74,800/(7,80,0004,05,200) shall be paid from the date of filing claim application till the amount was deposited by the insurance company under the impugned Award at the same rate of interest as was awarded by the Tribunal.