Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2048 (PNJ)

DEV RAJ v. RAM CHANDER

2015-11-05

SURINDER GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Surinder Gupta, J. This is an appeal against the award dated 29.04.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (later referred to as the Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs. 7,85,000/- has been awarded to the appellants-claimants on account of death of Sunita wife of appellant-claimant No. 1 and mother of appellants-claimants No. 2 to 4 in a motor accident. 2. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 08.06.2009, Sunita (later referred to as the deceased) along with Satbir Singh and claimants No. 2 to 4 was going to village Kulana on motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-24F/2976, being driven by Satbir Singh at a moderate speed. Claimant No. 1 along with his brother Gopi Ram was following them on another motorcycle, being driven by Gopi Ram. At about 3.00 P.M. when they reached near Utsav Hotel, Satrod Kalan, a bus bearing registration No.HR-56/2948 (later referred to as the offending vehicle) being driven by respondent No. 1-Ram Chander at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the motorcycle of Satbir, due to which all the occupants including the deceased fell down on the road and received serious and multiple injuries on their persons. The deceased was crushed under the wheel of offending vehicle and died at the spot. The accident was witnessed by Satbir Singh, Gopi Ram and claimant No. 1. FIR No. 50 dated 08.06.2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code was registered against respondent No. 1. 3. Respondent No. 1 Ram Chander, driver of the offending vehicle, contested the claim petition, submitting that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle with a mini truck and not with the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was falsely involved in the criminal case in connivance with the police only to grab compensation. 4. Respondents No. 2 and 3, owners of the offending vehicle, also contested the claim petition and had taken the similar plea as taken by respondent No. 1 in his written statement. 5. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, respondent No. 4 insurer of offending vehicle, contested the claim petition inter-alia on the ground that respondent No. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 5. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, respondent No. 4 insurer of offending vehicle, contested the claim petition inter-alia on the ground that respondent No. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It has also denied the accident with the offending vehicle and pleaded false involvement of offending vehicle, due to collusion of claimants with the police just to grab compensation. 6. On appraisal of evidence, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No. 1. The income of the deceased was taken @ Rs. 5000/- per month. After making deduction of 1/4th from the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses and by applying multiplier of 17 in view of age of the deceased as 30 years, a compensation of Rs. 7,85,000/- was allowed which included Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium for appellant No. 1. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their assistance. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has argued that the Tribunal has not allowed any compensation towards future prospects. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, which was 30 years, addition of 50% was required to be made in the income of the deceased towards future prospects. He has placed reliance on the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Munna Lal Jain and others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others 2015(3)RCR (Civil) 447 and Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 . The Tribunal has allowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses while as per the observations in case of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir and others (supra); Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and Others, AIR 2013 SC 3830 ; and Smt. Savita Vs. Bindar Singh and Others, (2014) 4 SCC 505 , an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was required to be allowed towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has allowed Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium to appellant No. 1, while no amount has been allowed to the minor children (claimants No. 2 to 4) towards loss of love and affection, care and guidance. 9. 25,000/- was required to be allowed towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has allowed Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium to appellant No. 1, while no amount has been allowed to the minor children (claimants No. 2 to 4) towards loss of love and affection, care and guidance. 9. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has argued that the matter regarding grant of future prospect is under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the reference made in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pushpa. He has further argued that the grant of compensation under the conventional heads falls within the discretionary power of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has already allowed compensation towards transportation and funeral expenses and loss of consortium, which call for no further enhancement. 10. On perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, I find that the notional income of the deceased has been taken @ Rs. 5,000/- per month keeping in view the contribution made by a wife to the house and also that she was doing the work of stitching, as such deceased was self employed. 11. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa and others (supra), while differing with the view taken in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , it was observed as follows:- "18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of para 24 of Sarla Verma judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes the victim of an accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation." 12. In case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , a three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in para 11 and 12 as follows:- "11. In case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , a three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in para 11 and 12 as follows:- "11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. 12. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter." 13. Reference was made to a larger Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa and others (supra), on 02.07.2014. In the recent judgment dated May 15, 2015 in case titled Munna Lal Jain and Others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others, a three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court allowed future prospects in the case of self-employed persons following the observations made in case of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir and others (supra). As the view taken in case of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir and others (supra) has been followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain and others Vs. Rajbir and others (supra). As the view taken in case of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir and others (supra) has been followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain and others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (supra), the claimants are entitled to 50% addition in the income of the deceased towards future prospects keeping in view the age of the deceased to be 30 years. 14. The Tribunal has allowed Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium. This amount as per the observations in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir and others (supra), is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- and the amount of funeral expenses which has been allowed as Rs. 10,000/- is also enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-. In this way, the claimants shall be entitled to compensation tabulated as follows:- 15. The appeal is accepted. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the appellants-claimants are allowed compensation of Rs. 13,72,500/- for the death of Sunita. The above amount will carry interest 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till actual realization. The amount of enhanced compensation shall be shared equally by the claimants. Respondent No. 4-insurance company will deposit the share of appellant- claimant No. 1 in his bank account or pay the same through demand draft. The share of minor claimants-appellants No. 2 to 4, who as per their age given at the time of filing of the petition are still minor, will be deposited in some nationalized bank as fixed deposits till the period they attain majority. It is, however, made clear that the bank may take the documents regarding the age of the minors as required at the time of deposit of the amount and the minors shall not be asked to bring the fresh order from the Tribunal to get the payment of the amount deposited in their name after the date of attaining majority. The above direction has been issued to save the claimants from unnecessary harassment caused due to directions the bank usually gives to bring the order of the Tribunal to get the payment even after attaining the age of majority. The claimants shall also be entitled to costs of this appeal. The counsel fee is assessed Rs. 20,000/-.