Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 22 (PNJ)

Sat Pal v. Nishan Singh

2023-01-04

MEENAKSHI I.MEHTA

body2023
JUDGMENT Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. - Both the above-captioned appeals are being taken up together for discussion and adjudication as these have arisen out of the common Award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short 'the Tribunal') on 30.09.2000, whereby two claim petitions, one filed by appellant-claimant Satpal and the other one, as moved by him (Satpal), along-with the appellants-claimants namely Ram Piari, Beena Rani and Nisha Rani (all the appellants-claimants, here-in-after, to be referred as 'the claimants') for seeking compensation on account of the death of Krishan and Ram Murti in a motor vehicular accident as well as another claim petition filed by injured Laxmi Devi, have been decided. 2. As per the brief factual-matrix culminating in the filing of the present appeals, on the ill-fated day, i.e 08.10.1998, said Ram Murti, along-with her minor son Krishan, the afore-named injured and one Nasib Singh, was travelling from Ambala City to her Village Godhapur on the Tractor bearing registration No.HYE-5689 and was sitting on its mud-guard while holding her above-said son in her lap and this Tractor was being driven at a moderate speed, on the correct side on the road. When they reached near Village Mehmadpur, a Truck having registration No.HR-37-2848 (for short 'the offending vehicle'), came from the back side and it was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed and it hit the said Tractor. All the afore-named persons suffered multiple injuries in this accident and Ram Murti and her son Krishan succumbed to their injuries at the spot. In FAO No.2456 of 2001, appellant-claimant Satpal is the unfortunate father of deceased Krishan and FAO No.2458 of 2001 pertains to the death of Ram Murti, who was his (Satpal's) wife and the mother of the remaining appellants-claimants. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2, the respective driver and owner of the offending vehicle, filed their joint written statement whereas respondent No.3, the insurer of the said vehicle, filed its separate written statement contesting the claim, as canvassed by the claimants in their petitions, on several grounds. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2, the respective driver and owner of the offending vehicle, filed their joint written statement whereas respondent No.3, the insurer of the said vehicle, filed its separate written statement contesting the claim, as canvassed by the claimants in their petitions, on several grounds. Then, the Tribunal put the parties to the trial by framing the issues on 23.08.1999 and after appreciating and evaluating the evidence as led by the parties on the record and hearing their counsel, the Tribunal passed the impugned Award, granting a sum of Rs.75,000/- to claimant Satpal as compensation on account of the death of his minor son Krishan and awarding the amount of Rs.2,71,200/- to the claimants in the second petition, as compensation for the death of Ram Murti and both the instant appeals have been preferred by the claimants for seeking the enhancement of the amount of compensation. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that the service of notice upon respondents No.1 and 2 in both the appeals, had been dispensed with by the Co-ordinate Bench, vide the order dated 07.03.2022. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants-claimants as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company in these appeals and have also perused the files carefully. FAO No.2456 of 2001 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant Satpal has contended that deceased Krishan, who was about 1 1/2 years old at the time of his death in the said accident, was the only son of the claimant but however, the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.75,000/- as compensation, in lump-sum, which is quite inadequate and unjustified as well and moreover, no compensation has been granted towards the loss of filial consortium and the funeral expenses and in these circumstances, the claimant is entitled to the enhancement of the amount of compensation accordingly. To buttress his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the verdict as rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and another Versus Shyam Kishore Murmu and another, 2022(1) RCR (Civil) 165 to the effect that 'where a claim petition was filed for seeking compensation on account of the death of a child, aged seven years and not an earning member, the fixing of notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum was not just and reasonable and it was a fit case to increase the notional income by taking into account the inflation, devaluation of rupee and cost of living and the notional income of the deceased was to be assessed at Rs.25,000/- per annum'. 7. However, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has argued that the claimant has already been awarded sufficient amount as compensation and therefore, he does not deserve any further enhancement in the same. 8. Taking the above-cited observations, as made by the Apex Court in Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and another (supra), as the guiding factor, the notional income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.25,000/- per annum and by applying the multiplier of 15' to the same, the amount of compensation is calculated to be (Rs.25,000x15)=Rs.3,75,000/-. Besides this amount, the claimant is also granted a sum of Rs.40,000/- for the loss of filial consortium and another amount of Rs.15,000/- towards the funeral expenses. 9. Resultantly, the enhanced amount of compensation, as shall be payable to the claimant, is worked out as under:- Head Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Enhancement Dependency Rs.2,61,120/- (rounded off as Rs.2,61,200/-) Rs.3,62,880/- Rs.1,01,680/- Loss of Consortium NIL Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.44,000/-x4) Rs.1,76,000/- Loss of Estate NIL Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- Funeral expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.16,500/- Rs.6500/- Total compensation: Rs.3,00,680/- 10. In view of the above-discussed facts and circumstances, FAO No.2458 of 2001 is hereby allowed to the effect that claimants Satpal, Ram Piari, Beena Rani and Nisha Rani are entitled to the net enhanced compensation amounting to Rs.3,00,680/-, over and above the amount of Rs.2,71,200/- as already awarded to them and the said enhanced amount shall carry the interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and shall be payable to the claimants in the same terms as mentioned in the impugned Award.