Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2706 (PNJ)

Ojha v. Jai Singh

2016-09-23

DARSHAN SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : DARSHAN SINGH, J. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 01.10.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter called the “Tribunal”), whereby the appellants-claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,45,100/- on account of death of their son Som Nath in the motor vehicular accident which took place on 17.05.2008. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 4. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellants- claimants contended that deceased Som Nath was working as a Cashier with Salim Hotel, HUDA Market, Sector 56, Gurgaon and was getting Rs.5000/- per month as salary but the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.3600/- per month. He further contended that learned Tribunal has not added any future prospects to the income of the deceased. The appellants-claimants have also not been awarded any compensation on account of loss of love and affection of their son. The multiplier has also been applied wrongly. Less amount has been awarded towards funeral expenses. Thus, he contended that learned Tribunal has not awarded just amount of compensation to the appellants-claimants. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded the just compensation while treating the deceased to be a casual labourer. He was not having any permanent job, so no future prospects shall be admissible towards the income of the deceased. He further contended that just and appropriate amount of compensation have been awarded by the learned Tribunal under all other heads and the impugned award does not call for any interference. 6. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 7. As per the case of the appellants-claimants deceased Som Nath was working as a Cashier in Salim Hotel and was getting Rs.5000/- per month. The appellants-claimants have also examined Mohd. Moin Qureshi, the Proprietor of the Salim Take Away as PW-6. He has produced the pay slip Ex.P5. He deposed that deceased was working as a Cashier with him on a salary of Rs.5000/- per month. Smt. Shivakala alias Kishna the mother of the deceased has also deposed on the similar lines. The appellants-claimants have also examined Mohd. Moin Qureshi, the Proprietor of the Salim Take Away as PW-6. He has produced the pay slip Ex.P5. He deposed that deceased was working as a Cashier with him on a salary of Rs.5000/- per month. Smt. Shivakala alias Kishna the mother of the deceased has also deposed on the similar lines. Mere pay slip Ex.P5, in the absence of any other corroborative document, cannot establish that deceased was employed as a Cashier and was getting Rs.5000/- per month as salary. Moreover, it is the admitted case of the appellants-claimants that at the time of the accident, the deceased was going to supply food to customers which can never be the function of a cashier. So, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the deceased to be a labourer/helper and has rightly taken his income to be Rs.3600/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal has not added any future prospects to the income of the deceased. The deceased was a young man of 22 years of age. He was hale and hearty. Even though he was working as a labourer, his income was bound to increase with the passage of time. So, the future prospects should have been added to the income of the deceased. In view of the age of the deceased, 50% of his income is required to be added towards future prospects. The total income of the deceased comes to Rs.5400/- per month i.e. Rs.64,800/- per annum. 8. The present claim petition has been filed by the parents of the deceased. He is stated to be bachelor. So, 50% of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses as per the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77. The remainder comes to Rs.32,400/-. The learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier taking into consideration the age of the parents (appellants-claimants). As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others 2015(3) PLR 304, the multiplier would be applicable as per the age of the deceased. The deceased was 22 years of age, so the multiplier of 18 shall be applicable. The compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,83,200/-. 9. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others 2015(3) PLR 304, the multiplier would be applicable as per the age of the deceased. The deceased was 22 years of age, so the multiplier of 18 shall be applicable. The compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,83,200/-. 9. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection and less amount has been awarded towards funeral expenses. The appellants-claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection of their son and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and last rites expenses. Total amount of compensation payable to the appellants-claimants comes to Rs.7,08,200/- 10. Thus, keeping in view my aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is hereby partly allowed. The total amount of compensation payable to appellants-claimants is enhanced to Rs.7,08,200/- from Rs.2,45,100/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants-claimants shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the petition till realization at the rate as determined by the learned Tribunal. The liability to pay the enhanced amount of compensation and apportionment amongst the claimants shall remain same as determined by the learned Tribunal in the main award. 11. As the matter with respect to future prospects has been referred to the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case National Insurance Company Vs. Pushpa, (2015) 9 SCC 166 , in order to safeguard the interest of respondent No.3-Insurance Company, the amount of compensation under the head future prospects shall be disbursed to the claimants against adequate security in the form of sufficient indemnity bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Tribunal/executing Court, wherein the claimants will undertake that if the Hon'ble Apex Court adjudicates that the casual labourers/persons not holding the permanent jobs will not be entitled to the future prospects, then they will be bound to refund the amount of future prospects received by them on moving the requisite application by the respondent-Insurance Company and the learned Tribunal will be competent to take the steps without making any reference to this Court.