Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2797 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh v. Raja Ram

2019-10-17

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2019
Judgment Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral):-CM-15822-CII-2014 Allowed, as prayed for. Main Case 2.The present appeal has been filed by the claimants challengingthe award dated 19.03.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Karnal (for short, the Tribunal), vide which, only an amount of Rs. 50,000/-was awarded under the no fault liability. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants restricted hisclaim qua appellant No.6 i.e. unmarried Sister, who was aged 14 years at thetime of accident. 4. In view of the above, the appeal qua appellant Nos.1 to 5 isdismissed as not pressed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Companywhile vehemently opposing the claim qua appellant No.6, submitted thatthere is no evidence on record that appellant No.6-Poonam Devi @ Gundriminor was dependent on the deceased. Reliance was placed on thejudgments rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in cases Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and others, 2009 (3) RCR(Civil) 77 and Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another,  2007 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 674, rendered by Hon’ble ChhattisgarhHigh Court in case Amoliram and others Vs. Siyaram and others, 2013 (2)AICJ 160, and rendered by learned Single Bench(s) of this Court in casesPardeep Vs. Dharambir and others, 2015 (1) PLR 392, Kashmir Kumar and others Vs. Mohan Singh and others, 2014 (2) PLR 13 and Bijender and another Vs. Ranbir Singh and others, FAO-1628-2013, decided on 19.09.2017, to contend that since the deceased was admittedly residingseparately, it cannot be said that the deceased was looking after his sister orthat she was dependent upon her deceased brother. Heard. 6. There is no dispute with law laid down by the aforesaidjudgments referred by learned counsel for respondent No.3/InsuranceCompany. However, all the judgments pertain to either the married sons,married daughters, married brothers or married sisters. None of them pertainto a minor unmarried sister. Therefore, the judgments are not applicable tothe facts of the present case. 7. In fact, Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited Versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018(4) RCR (Civil) 333, was pleased to hold as under:- “8.4. The Insurance Company has submitted that the fatherand the sister of the deceased could not be treated asdependents, and it is only a mother who can be dependentof her son. This contention deserves to be repelled. Thedeceased was a bachelor, whose mother had pre-deceasedhim. The Insurance Company has submitted that the fatherand the sister of the deceased could not be treated asdependents, and it is only a mother who can be dependentof her son. This contention deserves to be repelled. Thedeceased was a bachelor, whose mother had pre-deceasedhim. The deceased’s father was about 65 years old, and anunmarried sister. The deceased was contributing a part ofhis meagre income to the family for their sustenance andsurvival. Hence, they would be entitled to compensation ashis dependents.” 8. The argument that there is no proof that she was not dependentdeserves to be rejected being an outrageous argument in the facts of thepresent case. Appellant No. 6 had no parents. Neither her father and nor herbrother was alive. She is an orphan. The only person to look after her wasthe deceased who being unmarried, whereas, all the other siblings weremarried and had their respective families to look after. Thus, on the face ofit, she was 100% dependent on her unmarried brother. She was only 14years of age, therefore, it cannot be said that she was working and was evenable to look after herself and whether she was even in a position to affordtwo meals a day. In the absence of any living parent, she was almost like anunmarried dependent daughter on the deceased . The deceased was rather afather figure in her life. 9. This Court is shocked to hear the argument raised by learnedcounsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company, challenging thedependency of the minor orphan sister on her unmarried brother.FAO No.5703 of 2014 (O&M)Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed qua appellant No.6 by modifyingthe award as under. 10. Applying the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court inthe case of National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the income is assessed at Rs.4,000/- per monthbeing an unskilled labourer and the claimant is entitled to the multiplier of17 alongwith 40% future prospects as well as grant of Rs.30,000/- towardsloss of estate and funeral expenses. The question is now only about thededuction. No doubt, the deduction should be made @ 50% as the deceasedwas unmarried, however, the same is in case the parents are still alive. In thepresent case, there is only one claimant but since the claimant is anunmarried minor sister being 100% dependent on the deceased, it would befair to make a deduction to the extent of 60%. 11. No doubt, the deduction should be made @ 50% as the deceasedwas unmarried, however, the same is in case the parents are still alive. In thepresent case, there is only one claimant but since the claimant is anunmarried minor sister being 100% dependent on the deceased, it would befair to make a deduction to the extent of 60%. 11. In view of the same, the enhanced amount of Rs.4,36,960/- bepaid to appellant No.6 as per the calculation provided under:- Sr. No. Head Amount assessed 1 Income Rs.4,000/- per month (4000 x 12 = 48000 per annum) 2 Future Prospects 40% (48,000 x 40% = Rs.19,200) Rs.48000 + 19200 = Rs.67,200/- 3 Deduction 60% 60% of 67200 = Rs.40320/- 67200--40320 = Rs.26880/- 4 Multiplier 17 5 Compensation awarded 26880 x 17 = Rs.4,56,960/- 6 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 7 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 8 Total Rs.4,86,960/- 9 Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.50,000/- 10 Differences Rs.486960--50,000 = Rs.436960/- 12. Thus, the enhanced compensation of Rs.4,36,960/- be paid toappellant No.6 within two months from the receipt of certified copy of thisorder alongwith 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of claimpetition till its realization. In case the said amount is not paid within twomonths, the same shall be paid thereafter alongwith 12% interest from theexpiry of the period of two months. 13. At this stage, the Court restrains itself from imposing heavycosts on the insurance company for opposing the present claim petition quaappellant No.6 on the ground that she cannot be considered as dependentknowing fully well that she was minor and unmarried girl. 14. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.