Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1331 (PNJ)

DIVYA THAKUR v. JAIPAL SINGH

2013-10-01

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2013
JUDGMENT : VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. 1. This is an appeal brought by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. Nishant Thakur died in a road side accident that took place on 06.10.2009. Divya Thakur being his widow had brought a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/-. She had arrayed the parents of the deceased as proforma respondents in the claim petition. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.03.2011 allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs. 4,04,000/-. 2. Nishant Thakur, who has been claimed to be 32 years of age, is claimed to have been working as Senior Marketing Executive in AVA Properties, Sector 40, Gurgaon. He was getting Rs. 28,000/- per month as salary from the aforesaid concern. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was spent on his treatment, transportation and last rites. Claiming her to be widow of the deceased, Divya Thakur has brought the claim petition arraying her parents-in-law as proforma respondents. 3. The respondents have resisted the claim petition. They have denied the averments of the claimants regarding age, occupation and income of the deceased. They have denied the claimants to deserve a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/-. 4. Discussing the evidence coming on the record with regard to income of the deceased, learned Tribunal devoted much of the space of the judgment to the discussion on it and ultimately came to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. Deducting ?rd therefrom towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, a sum of Rs. 2000/- is found as monthly dependency and a sum of Rs. 24,000/- as annual dependency. Multiplier of 16 has been adopted in the case and a sum of Rs. 3,84,000/- is found to be the amount lost by the claimant and the proforma respondents in the death of Nishant Thakur. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded as compensation for expenses on funeral and transportation and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded as compensation for loss of consortium and, thus, a sum of Rs. 4,04,000/- has been awarded as compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Nishant Thakur was aged 32 years. According to him, for the fact that the deceased is not proved to be paying income tax, his income is taken at Rs. 10,000/- is awarded as compensation for loss of consortium and, thus, a sum of Rs. 4,04,000/- has been awarded as compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Nishant Thakur was aged 32 years. According to him, for the fact that the deceased is not proved to be paying income tax, his income is taken at Rs. 3000/- per month. According to him, no amount was added even in the name of future prospects. According to him, the compensation assessed in this case is extremely low. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.3, on the other hand, has submitted that adequate amount has already been awarded as compensation in this case. According to him, no increase to the income in the name of future prospects is admissible in this case. According to him, no enhancement to the compensation can be ordered in this case on the given facts. 7. A look at the averments of the claimant regarding the manner of the accident would make it apparent that Nishant Thakur was moving in his car bearing registration No. HR-26X-6070 at the time of the accident. Though, on the one hand, evidence has not been led to prove that the income tax was not being paid but on the other hand, it is a fact that the deceased owned a car and was travelling in his own car at the time of the accident. Reconciling both the circumstances, I find that a sum of Rs. 3000/-, as assessed by learned Tribunal, as the income of the deceased is extremely low and, therefore, I enhance it to Rs. 10,000/- per month. 8. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2013 ACJ 1403 , addition to the income in the name of future prospects is admissible even in case of people working on fixed wages. The principle underlying is that during the course of time everyone gets increase in his income be that not in the name of increment as is the case of Government employees. So in this case also future prospects cannot be ignored. As the deceased had been 32 years of age, 50% of the income is to be taken as future prospects. Thus, adding Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 10,000/- assessed as monthly income of the deceased, I find a sum of Rs. So in this case also future prospects cannot be ignored. As the deceased had been 32 years of age, 50% of the income is to be taken as future prospects. Thus, adding Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 10,000/- assessed as monthly income of the deceased, I find a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as the amount for the purpose of calculation of the compensation. 9. Since the deceased is married and has his widow and parents, ?rd is to be the deduction in the name of personal and living expenses of the deceased. Deducting ?rd therefrom, I find a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as monthly dependency and Rs. 1,20,000/- as annual dependency of the claimant and proforma respondents. Multiplying the annual dependency with 16, the multiplier selected by learned Tribunal in this case, I assess a sum of Rs. 19,20,000/- as the amount lost by the claimant and proforma respondents in the death of Nishant Thakur. Adding thereto, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation under conventional heads, I assess a sum of Rs. 19,40,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellant and proforma respondents. 10. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 4,04,000/- to Rs. 19,40,000/-, with the terms regarding interest etc. as allowed by learned Tribunal remaining the same. Out of the amount of compensation, a sum of Rs. 9,40,000/- would fall to the share of the appellant and the remaining amount shall be shared by proforma respondents No.4 and 5 namely Vijay Thakur and Smt. Saroj Thakur in equal.