Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 572 (PNJ)

Isham Singh v. Naresh Kumar

2018-02-09

HARI PAL VERMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. Hari Pal Verma, J.: (Oral) - CM No.6141-CII-2015: 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 26 days in filing the present application for restoration of the appeal is condoned. CM No.6141A-CII-2015: 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The appeal is restored to its original number. 3. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the main appeal is taken on Board. 4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 73 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. F.A.O. No.2272 of 1997: 5. Appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation in the award dated 06.05.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). 6. On a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on account of death of Bala Devi, who died in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 29.12.1993, the Tribunal while considering the age of the deceased as 45 years and applying the multiplier of ‘13’, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,11,000/- to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 12 per cent per annum. 7. Not satisfied with the aforesaid amount of compensation, the appellant-claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant-claimant is a handicap person, as his right arm was amputated. He belongs to an agriculturist family, where his wife was required to perform multifarious responsibilities. She used to take care of the appellant along with performing other agricultural activities. Even at the time of death of his wife, the appellant-claimant had two buffaloes and since he is a handicap, most of the work was performed by his wife only. In this manner, the appellant has lost regular assistance of his wife. The Tribunal has awarded compensation by considering the contribution of his wife as Rs.1,000/- per month, whereas the contribution of a housewife was much more. The appellant has lost company of his wife at a crucial juncture of his life, when he required her the most, more particularly when the claimant is handicapped. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the Tribunal has applied the wrong multiplier. The appellant has lost company of his wife at a crucial juncture of his life, when he required her the most, more particularly when the claimant is handicapped. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the Tribunal has applied the wrong multiplier. The deceased Bala Devi was 45 years of age and therefore, the Tribunal was required to apply the multiplier ‘14’ instead of ‘13’. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi, [2017(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2970 (SC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1565] : 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009 to contend that he is entitled for compensation under other conventional heads also. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- on account of ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation i.e. on account of shifting the dead body from Madhuban to Karnal and Karnal to Muzzafarnagar (U.P.), which is on a lower side. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation has argued that taking into consideration the contribution of the deceased-wife towards the appellant-claimant, the Tribunal has already awarded adequate compensation. Since the accident had taken place in the year 1993, the contribution of the deceased-wife towards her family cannot be more than Rs.1,000/- per month. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 12. So far as application of multiplier is concerned, there is no dispute that the deceased was 45 years of age. Therefore, as held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier of ‘14’ is required to be applied in the present case. Similarly, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Bala Devi as Rs.1,000/- per month and awarded compensation on account of financial loss, due to service rendered to the family as Rs.1,56,000/- [Rs.1,000x13x12]. This Court finds that the notional income of the deceased Bala Devi has wrongly been assessed and therefore, the same is required to be enhanced. She was contributing to the family of the appellant-claimant who was a handicapped person, as his right arm was amputated, which fact has not been disputed. Therefore, it cannot be disbelieved that the appellant–claimant was not dependent upon his wife. She was contributing to the family of the appellant-claimant who was a handicapped person, as his right arm was amputated, which fact has not been disputed. Therefore, it cannot be disbelieved that the appellant–claimant was not dependent upon his wife. Accordingly, the award is modified to the extent that the income of the deceased, as assessed by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.1,000/- is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- per month while taking in consideration the accident which took place on 29.12.1993. Thus, taking into consideration the notional income of the deceased, the compensation comes to 2000x14x12=Rs.3,36,000/-. 13. Similarly, an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded for compensation on account of loss of company of wife, as ‘consortium’, whereas an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded towards transportation, which also needs to be modified. Accordingly, in view of judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra), the appellant-claimant shall be entitled for compensation under ‘conventional heads’ i.e. Rs.40,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- for ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,91,000/- (2000x12x14+40,000+15,000). 14. With the aforesaid modifications, the present appeal is disposed of. 15. However, it is made clear that the appellant-claimant shall not be entitled for interest for the period between 14.01.2015 to 09.02.2018, as vide order dated 14.01.2015 of this Court, the present appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, as nobody had put in appearance on behalf of the appellant and it cannot be said that the respondents were at fault for this. The enhanced amount of compensation shall fetch interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization except for the period between 14.01.2015 to 09.02.2018.