Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1330 (PNJ)

MADAN RAM v. HARBANS

2013-10-01

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2013
JUDGMENT : VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. 1. There is a delay of 82 days in filing the appeal. The same is prayed to be condoned. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 had no objection to the same. Hence, the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal This is an appeal brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. Prem Paswan died in a roadside accident that took place on 14.3.2010. On his death, his parents brought a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short, "the Tribunal") allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs. 5,40,000/-. Prem Paswan has been a young man of the age of 25/26 years. He was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by working as a driver of Eicher canter No. GJ-1-BY-5091. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. The deceased is the sole bread winning member of the family. On these facts, a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs is claimed as compensation. 2. The respondents resisted the, claim petition. They have denied the averments of the claimants regarding the age, occupation and income of the deceased. They have denied the claimants to deserve a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs as compensation. 3. Learned Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as income of the deceased taking him as a skilled driver. He deducted 50% thereof in the name of personal and living expenses of the deceased and assessed a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as annual dependency of the claimants. Taking the age of the claimants at 57 years for the purpose of calculating the compensation, he took the multiplier of 9 and found a sum of Rs. 5,40,000/- as the amount lost by the claimants in the death of Prem Paswan. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the deceased had been a young man of 25/26 years. According to him, he was unmarried. He has further submitted that though Madan Ram, appellant No. 1 has been 57 years of age, Smt. Mandodari Devi, appellant No. 2, the mother of the deceased had been 52 years of age and as she is the prime claimant, the multiplier should have been governed by her age. According to him, he was unmarried. He has further submitted that though Madan Ram, appellant No. 1 has been 57 years of age, Smt. Mandodari Devi, appellant No. 2, the mother of the deceased had been 52 years of age and as she is the prime claimant, the multiplier should have been governed by her age. According to him, in this way, the multiplier of 11 is available in this case. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that future prospects have also not been considered in this case. He has submitted that the deceased would have a great increase in his income because he was 25/26 years of age at the time of the accident. According to him, in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has enlarged the scope of addition of income in the name of future prospects in case of people working on fixed wages as is the case in hand. He has submitted that upto the age of 40 years, addition has to be at the rate of 50%. According to him, adding income in the name of future prospects and adopting the multiplier of 11, the compensation should be assessed and some amount should be allowed under the conventional heads, which learned Tribunal has ignored altogether. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted, on the other hand, that adequate amount has already been assessed as compensation in this case. According to her, there is no scope of enhancement of compensation in this case on the given facts and circumstances. 7. The deceased, Prem Paswan has been aged 25/26 years. Learned counsel for the appellants has prayed for adding 50% of the income thereto in the name of future prospects and for that purpose, the age of the deceased is relevant. In view of the ratio of Rajesh's case [supra], the deceased is not required to be in permanent job for addition of some amount in the name of future prospects to the income of the deceased. Thus, in case of a victim having fixed wages, addition in the income in the name of future prospects is admissible. Taking into consideration the ratio of Rajesh's case [supra], I add a sum of Rs. Thus, in case of a victim having fixed wages, addition in the income in the name of future prospects is admissible. Taking into consideration the ratio of Rajesh's case [supra], I add a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the income of the deceased and thus, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 15,000/- for the purpose of calculation of compensation. 50% of the same is the dependency of the claimants, who are parents of the deceased. The same comes to Rs. 7,500/- and multiplied by 12, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 90,000/-. Out of the parents of the deceased, Smt. Mandodari Devi is of the age of 52 years. The multiplier has to be adopted on the basis of age of the mother and the same to be adopted in this case is of 11 as per 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 . So calculated, the claimants appear to have lost a sum of Rs. 9,90,000/- in the death of Prem Paswan, Adding to it a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, I assess a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as the compensation payable to the appellants on the death of their son Prem Paswan. Consequently, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 5,40,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- with other terms regarding rate of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same.