Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 93 (PNJ)

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani

2014-01-13

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
Jitendra Chauhan, J. CM-32646-CII-2010 Heard. Keeping in view the facts narrated in the application, delay of 242 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO-7404-2010 and X OBJC-12-CII-2011 2. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, relies upon the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, to contend that the rationale of considering the future two pay commissions of which the deceased would have been the beneficiary, is not tenable. No other point has been raised. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants/cross-objectors contends that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The reasoning given by the learned Tribunal is very logical and that benefit would have certainly accrued to the deceased during the course of his service. Therefore, the benefit on this score cannot be disputed. 6. The Court further records that the amount paid against the head 'loss of consortium' and 'funeral expenses', is also inadequate. Keeping in view the law laid down in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh (SC), 2013 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 170, the amount of compensation granted against the head 'loss of consortium' is enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-, and 'funeral expenses' from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. 7. In view of the above, the claimant-appellant is held entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,18,000/-, over and above the amount already awarded by the learned Tribunal, which shall be payable to the claimants within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which, they shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of filing the present appeal, till its realization. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, cross objections No. 12-CII of 2011, are partly allowed, whereas, the present appeal, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.