Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 98 (PNJ)

Santra Devi v. Ramesh Kumar

2014-01-13

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
Jitendra Chauhan, J. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 9.11.2011, on account of death of Suresh Kumar, in a motor vehicular accident. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased left behind four dependents i.e. mother, wife and two minor children. In view of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, the dependency of 3/4th deserved to be taken. He further submits that the amount awarded towards transportation and last rite is also on the lower side. No amount has been awarded towards loss of consortium. 2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has not disputed the above facts but he submits that the deceased was 42 years of age and therefore, the multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 4. It is not disputed that the death of Suresh Kumar occurred due to the injuries suffered by him in a road accident on 15.1.2010. As per postmortem report Ex. P-5, and the testimony of PW - 2 Santra Devi, wife of the deceased, he was 42 years of age at the time of death. He left behind four dependents. In 14 and 21 of Smt. Sarla Verma's case, The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six. 21. 21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and charlie which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years. 5. In view of the above, in the present case, the multiplier of 14 instead of 15 ought to have been applied, as the deceased was 42 years of age at the time of death and the dependency of 3/4th ought to have been taken, as there are four dependents. Ordered accordingly. 6. From the perusal of the award, it emerges that no amount has been awarded towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In view of Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 170, (Supreme Court), in the present case, this Court awards a sum of Rs. 1 lac as loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses (including Rs. 6000/- already awarded towards last rites). 7. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs. 6,54,200/- (4200 (monthly income) x 3/4th (dependency) x 12 x 14 (multiplier) + 1,00,000/- (consortium) + 25,000/- (funeral expenses etc.). The balance enhanced amount i.e. Rs. 1,44,200/- (6,54,200-5,10,000 already awarded by the Tribunal) shall be paid to the claimant-appellants, in the manner indicated in the impugned Award, within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, the appellants shall be entitled to get interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the filing of the appeal till its realisation. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the above extent.