Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 801 (PNJ)

Anari Devi v. Balwan Singh

2013-07-02

Vijender Singh Malik

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.:- This is an appeal brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 9.3.2011. The Tribunal vide the award dated 9.3.2011 has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,90,000/- as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till realization of the award money. 2. The deceased is an 18 years old boy, named Kapil and he was a bachelor and claimants in the case are his mother and his sister. The award is challenged only on two grounds. The first is the cut applied by the Tribunal for the personal expenses of the deceased on himself to assess the dependency of the claimants and the second is the multiplier. As these facts do not require consideration of the averments on both sides, I do not find it necessary to notice the averments of the parties to the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the deceased has been admittedly a bachelor and he has been survived by his mother and an unmarried sister. According to him, the multiplier is not to be governed by the age of the claimants in this case but by the age of the deceased. He has cited in this regard a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in P.S. Somanathan and others Vs. District Insurance Officer and others, [2011(2) Law Herald (SC) 1126 : 2011(1) Law Herald (Acc.) 321 (SC)] : 2011(2) RCR (Civil) 228. In the reported case, besides the mother of the deceased, a bachelor, there was a younger brother of the deceased as one of the claimants and it was held that the multiplier would follow the age of the deceased and not the age of the claimants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that mother of the deceased is not the only claimant here, his younger sister who was dependent upon him is also there. According to him, in the face of the fact that there were two dependents of the deceased, cut of 1/3rd was suitable to be applied to assess the dependency of the claimants. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted on the other hand that petitioner No. 2 is the sister of the deceased. According to him, in the face of the fact that there were two dependents of the deceased, cut of 1/3rd was suitable to be applied to assess the dependency of the claimants. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted on the other hand that petitioner No. 2 is the sister of the deceased. According to him, Smt. Anari Devi, claimant No.1 has stated in her statement that her daughter had been married. According to him, a married sister cannot be taken as claimant in this case and, therefore, the assessment of compensation by learned Tribunal is correct and proper. 6. Age of claimant No.2, Babli, would be much relevant in this case to decide whether she is married or not. It is not a case where there is clear admission of Anari Devi that the claimant No.2 had been married. She had, though, stated that her daughter had been married, yet she corrected herself by saying that she was unmarried. It may be a mistake on the part of claimant No.1, Anari Devi in saying that her daughter, Babli, claimant No.2 was married. Babli is shown to be aged 13 years and marriage of a 13 years old girl is unlawful. It cannot be believed that the withdrawal of the admission of Anari Devi regarding the marriage of Babli is meaningless. Hence, Babli cannot be taken to be married sister of the deceased. 7. When unmarried sister of the deceased, a minor, is one of the claimants, as per the decision in P.S. Somanathan’s case [supra], the multiplier should be adopted taking into consideration the age of the deceased. Taking the age of deceased in consideration, the multiplier suitable would be of 17. As the dependents are two in number, the dependency also has to be at 2/3rd of the income of the deceased. Assessing the compensation with these two different parameters, I find the same to be a sum of Rs. 4,08,000/- as payable to the claimants. Adding to it a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal for loss of estate, funeral expenses etc., I find a sum of Rs. 4,28,000/- as compensation payable to the claimants on the death of Kapil. 8. Consequently, the appeal is accepted and the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 2,90,000/- to Rs. Adding to it a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal for loss of estate, funeral expenses etc., I find a sum of Rs. 4,28,000/- as compensation payable to the claimants on the death of Kapil. 8. Consequently, the appeal is accepted and the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 2,90,000/- to Rs. 4,28,000/- with other terms regarding rate of interest and ratio of apportionment etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same. ---------0.B.S.0------------ --------------------