Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1611 (PNJ)

Suresh v. Akhilesh Kumar

2023-05-03

NIDHI GUPTA

body2023
JUDGMENT Nidhi Gupta, J. CM No.2453-CII/2020 Since there is delay of 72 days in filing the appeal, aforesaid application has been filed seeking condonation of delay. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Main Appeal. Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.8,84,176/- granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide Award dated 5.7.2019 passed in MACP 32/2018 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Claimants are widow and two major sons of deceased Sukhbir Singh who was aged 59 years at the time of his death. 4. Ld. Tribunal on appraisal of facts, pleadings and evidence on record held that the deceased had died due to injuries suffered by him in motor vehicular accident that took place on 29.11.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of Mixture Truck bearing registration No. HR-46-C-0708 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no.3. The Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation on the ground that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as Rs.8280/- per month as that of an unskilled labourer. It is submitted that the deceased was an agriculturist, and was also running a dairy farm from which sources he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. It is submitted that the deceased was also working part time in water supply maintenance as Lineman from where he was getting salary of Rs.4000/- per month. It is submitted that despite appellants' having led cogent and convincing evidence in support of the said contentions, ld. Tribunal has still taken income of the deceased as only Rs.8280/- per month. 6. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the appellants that even nothing has been granted by way of parental consortium to appellants 2 and 3 who are children of the deceased. 7. It is submitted that rate of interest @ 6% per annum is also on the lower side. 8. No other argument has been raised. 9. Heard ld. Counsel. 10. Counsel for the appellants that even nothing has been granted by way of parental consortium to appellants 2 and 3 who are children of the deceased. 7. It is submitted that rate of interest @ 6% per annum is also on the lower side. 8. No other argument has been raised. 9. Heard ld. Counsel. 10. As regards income of the deceased, it is established position in law that income from agriculture and dairy farm is not to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing compensation payable under the Act, as the agricultural land as well as dairy farm/milch cattle still remain with the claimants after the death of the deceased and therefore, income from the said source is still available to the claimants. In the present case, it has been admitted by the claimants that they are still maintaining the buffaloes and are deriving income from selling the milk. Even otherwise, perusal of the evidence brought on record by the claimants is insufficient to establish that deceased had income from dairy farming. Ld. Tribunal has however, awarded Rs.2000/- per month towards loss of supervision of agriculture land, which I will maintain. 11. As regards contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellants that deceased was drawing salary of Rs.4000/- per month from his part time job as Lineman with the Water Supply Department, appellants had examined PW2 Satyawan Singh, Gram Secretary who testified that the deceased was working part time in Water Supply Maintenance. PW2 had also produced certificate dated 15.12.2017 (Ex.P2) issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Village Dubaldhan Kirman, wherein it has been mentioned that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.4000 per month for doing part-time job as Lineman. However, PW2 has admitted that the said certificate Ex.P2 was prepared after the death of the deceased. PW2 produced no other cogent record to prove purported employment of the deceased with the Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, I am in concurrence with the conclusion of the ld. Tribunal that claimants had failed to prove employment of the deceased as part-time Lineman. 12. It is in view of the above said facts that the ld. Tribunal has determined notional income of the deceased as Rs.8280/- per month on the basis of relevant Minimum Wage Notification dated 2.3.2017 (Ex.R9) as admissible to an unskilled labourer. Tribunal that claimants had failed to prove employment of the deceased as part-time Lineman. 12. It is in view of the above said facts that the ld. Tribunal has determined notional income of the deceased as Rs.8280/- per month on the basis of relevant Minimum Wage Notification dated 2.3.2017 (Ex.R9) as admissible to an unskilled labourer. For the reasons stated above/discussion above, I find no error in the said assessment as made by the ld. Tribunal. 13. As regards contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellants that nothing has been granted by way of consortium to appellants 2 and 3 being major children of the deceased, in my view said argument deserves to be outrightly rejected in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Vinish Jain and others, Law Finder Doc ID#977386', and of this Court in Harpal Kaur and others v. Sita Ram and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 921104; Narender Nayyar v. Sheodan Singh and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 626136; and Sajna Devi and others v. Vijender Kumar and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 921100, where in it has been held that major children of the deceased are not entitled to consortium. 14. Even otherwise, as per latest judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited v. Bhagat Singh Rawat & anr; others, C.A.No.2410-2412/2023, it has been held that a total amount of Rs.70,000/- has to be awarded under the conventional heads. It has been held that Rs.40,000/- in toto is to be awarded as consortium, and each of the claimants is not entitled to Rs.40,000/- each as consortium. Above said view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated in Mehmooda Bee and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., SLP (C) No.16767 of 2022 and Bebi Giri v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.6551 of 2022 (SLP(C) No.8768 of 2018. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has not shown any judgment to the contrary. 15. Impugned Award further bears out that the ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation in the following manner: 16. As discussed above, ld. Tribunal has correctly taken monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8280/- plus Rs.2000/-=10,280 per month/ annual income as Rs.1,23,360/-. As per post mortem report Ex.P8 age of the deceased was determined as 59 years at the time of death. Therefore, ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation in the following manner: 16. As discussed above, ld. Tribunal has correctly taken monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8280/- plus Rs.2000/-=10,280 per month/ annual income as Rs.1,23,360/-. As per post mortem report Ex.P8 age of the deceased was determined as 59 years at the time of death. Therefore, ld. Tribunal correctly made addition of 10% towards future prospects as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Thus, after adding future prospects the annual income of the deceased came to be Rs.1,23,360/-+ 12,336/- =Rs.1,35,696/-. Claimants being three in number ld. Tribunal has made a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses being Rs.45,232/-whereafter annual dependency of the appellants comes to Rs.90,464/-. Keeping in view the age of the deceased being 59 years, multiplier of 9 was correctly applied. Total dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.90,464x9= Rs.8,14,176/-. A further sum of Rs.70,000/- was granted under the conventional heads. 17. Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, I find no case is made out that merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the compensation awarded to the appellants to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Moreover, compensation awarded upon the death of a near and dear loved one cannot be made a market negotiation, where every penny has to be calculated and drawn. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, (1999) 1 SCC 90 and Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. v. Mahadev Shetty, (2003) 7 SCC 197 , has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. Thus, all that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is 'just'. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very 'just' compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very 'just' compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In case of KSRTC v. Susamma Thomas 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. 18. Dismissed. 19. Application(s), if any, stand disposed of.