Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3266 (PNJ)

Ram Murti v. Sukhdeep Singh

2018-08-06

B.S.WALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. B.S. Walia, J (Oral) - Prayer by the widow, 3 minor daughters and one minor son is for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) to the widow, 04 minor daughters and 2 minor sons of Ramesh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) aged 30 years, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 19.11.2000. 2. The deceased was claimed to be working as a labourer earning Rs.2500/- per month. It would be relevant to mention here that the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal by the widow, 04 minor daughters and 1 minor son of deceased i.e. by 06 claimants. However, one child was born to the widow after the filing of the claim petition as is evident from paragraph No. 8 of the award wherein it has been mentioned that a male child namely Rohdas was born to the widow of the deceased after the death of her husband. Accordingly, there are 07 persons who were dependent upon the deceased. Although, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- to 07 dependents including Miss Anita minor daughter claimant No.6 and Master Rohdas minor son claimant No.7 as is evident from paragraph No. 12 of the award, yet, for reasons best known to the appellant, the present appeal has been filed on behalf of 05 claimants i.e. excluding Miss Anita minor daughter-claimant No.6 and Master Rohdas minor sonclaimant No.7 of the deceased-Ramesh. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the same is due to inadvertence, therefore, the number of claimants be treated as 07. 3. Widow of the deceased PW-1 deposed on oath before the learned Tribunal that her husband was a labourer and was earning Rs.2500/- per month. No evidence was led in rebuttal by the respondents. However, the learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month and by deducting Rs.500/- per month towards personal expenses of the deceased, worked out dependency at Rs.1000/- per month. Further by applying multiplier of 16, compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- was awarded to the seven dependents in proportion to the ratio stipulated in paragraph No. 12 of the award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the award of compensation on two grounds. Further by applying multiplier of 16, compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- was awarded to the seven dependents in proportion to the ratio stipulated in paragraph No. 12 of the award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the award of compensation on two grounds. Firstly on the ground that assessment of income was made on the lower side and the same ought to have been taken at Rs.2500/- per month since neither the respondents led any evidence in rebuttal nor was the evidence of the widow in respect thereto demolished in her cross-examination. Moreover the deceased left behind 06 dependents besides the seventh one was born after his death. Learned counsel further contended that the question of assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month did not arise under any circumstances, even if, the income of the deceased was to be assessed as per the minimum wages i.e Rs.2116/- per month during the relevant period. Secondly, learned counsel contended that the appellants were entitled to amount of compensation of Rs.9500/- under conventional heads as per the second schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. Although, the minimum wages payable to a labourer during said period is admitted by learned counsel for the respondent at Rs.2116/- per month, yet, in the absence of the credibility of PW-1, of the deceased earning Rs.2500/- per month, being demolished, the income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.2500/- per month, particularly in view of the fact that he was supporting a large family. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to controvert the claim of the appellants for enhancement of assessment of income of the deceased to Rs.2500/- per month since the respondents failed to rebut the claim of the deceased earning Rs.2500/- per month. In the circumstances, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.2500/- per month. Since 07 persons were dependent on the deceased, therefore, as per the second schedule of Section 163-A of the Act, deduction of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased is to be made towards his personal expenses. Moreover, in view of the deceased being 30 years old multiplier of 17 is to be applied. 7. Since 07 persons were dependent on the deceased, therefore, as per the second schedule of Section 163-A of the Act, deduction of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased is to be made towards his personal expenses. Moreover, in view of the deceased being 30 years old multiplier of 17 is to be applied. 7. In the light of the aforementioned position, the dependency would be worked out to Rs.2500-1/3rdx12x17. Accordingly, the dependency is worked out at Rs.3,40,000/-. No amount has been awarded under the conventional heads whereas as per the second schedule under Section 163-A of the Act, a sum of Rs.2000/- is to be awarded for funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- on account of loss of consortium and Rs.2500/- on account of loss of estate. Accordingly a sum of Rs.9500/- is awarded in addition to the compensation assessed above. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable works out to Rs.3,49,500/- i.e. (Rs.2500-1/3rdX12X17=3,40,000+9500/-). 8. In the light of the position as noted above, the award is modified and compensation payable is enhanced as under: S. No. Head Amount assessed by Tribunal in Rs. Amount assessedby this Court in Rs. 1 Income 1500/- 2500/- 2 Deduction towards personal expenses of deceased. 1/3rd of Rs.1500 = Rs.500/- 1/3 rd of Rs.2500/- = 833.33/- 3 Dependency arrived at 1000/- 1666.67 4 Multiplier applied 16 17 5 Compensation awarded 1000 x 12 x 16 = 1,92,000/- 1666.67 x 12 x 17 = 3,40,000/- 6 Loss of consortium NIL 5000/- 7 NIL 2000/- 8 NIL 2500/- Total 1,92,000/- 3,49,500/- 9. Accordingly, in the light of the position as noted above, the appellants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.3,49,500 along with interest @ 7.5% per annum with effect from the date of claim petition till the date of payment less amount, if any, already paid. 10. It would be relevant to note that the compensation awarded was released to the claimants in the proportion as mentioned in paragraph No. 12 of the award. However, as per paragraph No. 14 of the award, the widow was permitted to withdraw only a sum of Rs.20,000/- out of Rs.42,000/- awarded to her. The said condition is modified. 10. It would be relevant to note that the compensation awarded was released to the claimants in the proportion as mentioned in paragraph No. 12 of the award. However, as per paragraph No. 14 of the award, the widow was permitted to withdraw only a sum of Rs.20,000/- out of Rs.42,000/- awarded to her. The said condition is modified. Accordingly appellant No.1 i.e. widow of the deceased would be entitled to get the enhanced amount of compensation and the amount on account of loss of consortium while the children of the deceased would be entitled to get the enhanced compensation on attaining the age of majority. Accordingly, the Executing Court would place the amount received on account of enhanced compensation in a fixed deposit qua the 06 minors in proportion to their share which is to be released to them on their attaining the age of majority. 11. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Award dated 01.02.2002 passed by the learned MACT, Chandigarh is modified to the extent as noted above.