Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 359 (PNJ)

Sowaran Kanta Dhal v. Ramm Pal Saini

2014-02-13

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
Judgment JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamunanagar at Jagadhari (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 09.12.1997, on account of the death of Girish Dhall, son of the appellant, in a motor vehicular accident. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the salary of the deceased at Rs.1,050/per month, in view of the statement made by PW4 Vinod Prashar, the Proprietor of Health Care Enterprises, Patiala. Learned counsel for the appellant reply upon the appointment letter dated 11.10.1993 at Ex.PE issued by PW4 wherein the salary with incentives has been reflected at Rs.2,500/per month. 3. It is further contended that the Tribunal has wrongly applied a multiplier of 13, which should be applied keeping in view the age of the parents. No amount has been awarded for future prospects and the amount paid under other heads are also inadequate. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3Insurance Company submits that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. It has come on record that the trolly which had a mechanical break down was parked on the extreme left side of kacha portion of the road and the bushes were put around the trolly and the riders of the scooter could not notice the indication of bushes and struck against the trolly. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further contends that a case of contributory negligence. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 6. With regard to contributory negligence, Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against him. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to his salary, it has come on record that the carry home salary of the deceased was Rs.1,050/. It has been shown as a service representative with the employer dealing in Health Care Enterprises. However, nothing has been placed on record with regard to qualification of the deceased. Although he was matriculate and 19 years of age yet nothing has come on record regarding his qualification. It has been shown as a service representative with the employer dealing in Health Care Enterprises. However, nothing has been placed on record with regard to qualification of the deceased. Although he was matriculate and 19 years of age yet nothing has come on record regarding his qualification. Therefore, in absence of the any evidence with regard to academic qualification, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to the extent of accepting the salary at Rs.2,500/is negated. 7. From the perusal of the record, it is made out that the deceased, Girish Dhall, was 19 years of age at the time of his death. Applied by the multiplier of 13 which should be 18 as per the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (SC), 2009(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 77. It is ordered accordingly. 8. Hon'ble the Apex Court, in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh (SC), 2013 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 170, has held that in case of self employed or a person with fixed wages, there must be an addition to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. 9. In the instant case, the deceased was 19 years of age and earning Rs.1,050/per month. Therefore, a notional addition of 50% (Rs.5,25/) on account of future prospects is made and the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,575/per month. 10. However, cut shall be applied to the extent of 50% in view of the judgement laid down in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ld. 2012(4) RCR (Civil 343), as the deceased was unmarried. The multiplier to be applied according to the age of the deceased and not according to the age of the dependents and 50% deduction should have been made towards personal expenses. 11. If the above considerations are taken into account, the compensation towards dependency would come to Rs.1,525/X 12 X 18 X ½ = Rs.1,64,592/. Ordered accordingly. 12. Keeping in view the law laid down in Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others (2013-3) PLR 776, an amount of compensation Rs.1,00,000/is awarded towards loss of love and affection to the mother and Rs.5,000/towards funeral expenses. 13. Ordered accordingly. 12. Keeping in view the law laid down in Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others (2013-3) PLR 776, an amount of compensation Rs.1,00,000/is awarded towards loss of love and affection to the mother and Rs.5,000/towards funeral expenses. 13. In view of the above, the claimant-appellant is held entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,59,592/(rounded Rs.1,60,000/) {Rs.1,64,592/(enhanced dependency) + Rs.1,00,000/(Loss of love and affection) + Rs.5,000/(enhanced funeral expenses) – Rs.1,10,000/(already awarded by the Tribunal) shall be paid to the claimant/appellant, in the manner in the impugned award, within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, the appellant shall be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the appeal till its realization. 14. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the above extent.