Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1878 (PNJ)

Mithlesh v. Babu Ram

2017-08-18

REKHA MITTAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : REKHA MITTAL, J. 1. The claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in regard to death of Hardam Singh in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 11.9.2007. 2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Faridabad (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Tribunal") assessed income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/- per month, deducted 1/4th for personal expenses and applied multiplier of 15 to compute loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 10,12,500/- but granted compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- in view of claim made by the claimants in the application. 3. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has not allowed benefit of increase in income for future prospects nor awarded any compensation under conventional heads. It is argued with vehemence that even if the claimants have prayed for compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs, it is an obligation of the Tribunal to assess just and reasonable compensation. It is further argued that in case the compensation payable to the claimants is calculated more than what has been claimed in the application for compensation, the Tribunal cannot deny just compensation by restricting it to the amount claimed. In this context, reference has been made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 258. 4. Counsel representing the insurance company would urge that the Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/- per month without there being any cogent and convincing much less documentary evidence on record to justify findings of the Tribunal. It is further argued that as the Tribunal has already assessed income of the deceased at a higher rate which is almost double of the minimum wage available at the relevant time, claimants are not entitled to benefit of increase in income for future prospects. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the paper book particularly the award dated 19.11.2009. 6. Counsel for the insurance company has not cited any judgment contrary to what has been held in Nagappa's case (supra). Compensation assessed by the Tribunal is more than Rs. 10 Lakhs but the Tribunal restricted it to Rs. 10 lakhs as per claim made in the application. That being so, findings of the Tribunal to restrict the compensation to Rs. 10 lakhs cannot be sustained and accordingly set aside. 7. Compensation assessed by the Tribunal is more than Rs. 10 Lakhs but the Tribunal restricted it to Rs. 10 lakhs as per claim made in the application. That being so, findings of the Tribunal to restrict the compensation to Rs. 10 lakhs cannot be sustained and accordingly set aside. 7. The Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased at Rs. 7500/- per month by taking into consideration testimonies of Bhim Singh PW4 and Surender Chaudhary PW-5 coupled with salary certificate Ex. P-7. The insurance company has not preferred any appeal against findings of the Tribunal assessing income of the deceased. Counsel for the insurance company has failed to point out any materials brought forth in cross examination of Bhim Singh and Surender Chaudhary to contend that their testimonies are not worthy of credence or cannot form the basis for findings recorded by the Tribunal. As such, I do not find any error much less illegality in the findings of the Tribunal assessing income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/- per month. 8. The deceased was 37 years old. He has left behind a family consisting of his widow and four minor children. There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that the deceased was suffering from any disability to work to the maximum of his capacity to earn livelihood for himself and his family. He would not have stagnated at a salary of Rs. 7,500/- per month, had he remained alive. Under the circumstances, the claimants shall be entitled to addition in income for future prospects to the extent of 50% as the deceased was less than 40 years of age. In this context, reference can be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2013(3) RCR (Civil) 170. After allowing benefit of future prospects, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 7500 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 13,50,000 + 6,75,000 (50%) = 20,25,000 - 5,06,250 (1/4th) = Rs. 15,18,750/-. 9. Under conventional heads, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow, Rs. 3,00,000/- for loss of love and affection to the children to be shared equally, Rs. 25,000/- for expenses on funeral/last rites and Rs. 25,000/- for loss of estate has been awarded. The total compensation comes to Rs. 19,68,750/- and the additional amount is Rs. 9,68,750/-. 1,00,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow, Rs. 3,00,000/- for loss of love and affection to the children to be shared equally, Rs. 25,000/- for expenses on funeral/last rites and Rs. 25,000/- for loss of estate has been awarded. The total compensation comes to Rs. 19,68,750/- and the additional amount is Rs. 9,68,750/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till realization, payable to the claimants in equal proportion. The amount falling to share of minor claimants shall be deposited in a fixed deposit receipt for a period of three years or till they attain the age of majority, whichever is later. 10. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.