Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2766 (PNJ)

Prem Lata v. Lakhdhir Singh

2023-09-14

GURBIR SINGH

body2023
Judgment Mr. Gurbir Singh, J.:- This appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants (hereafter referred to as “the claimants”) for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 29.1.1991 passed in petition No.29 of 1989 titled as “Prem Lata and others Vs. Lakhbir Singh and others”. The petition was filed by widow and minor children of Ranbir Singh, Executive Engineer who died in motor vehicle accident which took place on 27.4.1989 being legal representatives and dependents of deceased. 2. Learned Tribunal vide impugned award disposed of four claim petitions on the basis of evidence led by the parties on the file. Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that on 27.04. 1989, the officers of the Haryana State Electricity Board, one Executive Engineer, Sh.Ranbir Singh, another Puran Singh, SDO were travelling in an official Jeep bearing No.HYB-4807 which was driven by Jai Singh, Driver. They were going from Bhiwani toward Rohtak. A truck bearing No.RJI-3837 which was driven by Balbir Singh in a rash and negligent manner, coming from opposite side, struck against the Jeep. The driver of the Jeep, Jai Singh died on the spot. Ranbir Singh, Xen and Puran Singh, SDO suffered injuries. Ranbir Singh, Executive Engineer succumbed to his injuries lateron. SDO Puran Singh got treatment and recovered. The accident was caused by Balbir Singh, driver of the truck bearing No.RJI-3837 which was driven in rash and negligent manner. 3. Learned tribunal has held that the claimants being widow son and minor daughters are entitled to a sum of Rs.7,30,000/- as compensation and liability on the driver and Insurance company of the truck in question was held to be joint and severally. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the salary of the deceased at the time of death was Rs.66,000 per annum and he was also entitled for rent free accommodation and free conveyance. Learned tribunal has wrongly deducted the income tax of the deceased at the rate of Rs.6000/- per annum whereas as per salary certificate, only a sum of Rs.250/- per month was being deducted. No future prospect has been awarded. No amount of compensation was awarded towards conventional heads. 5. Learned tribunal has wrongly deducted the income tax of the deceased at the rate of Rs.6000/- per annum whereas as per salary certificate, only a sum of Rs.250/- per month was being deducted. No future prospect has been awarded. No amount of compensation was awarded towards conventional heads. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance-company has submitted that the deceased was 42 years of age at the time of death and the learned tribunal has wrongly adopted multiplier of 16 whereas multiplier of 14 was required to be taken into consideration while assessing the amount of compensation and income tax was required to be deducted at the rate of 30%. The learned tribunal has wrongly awarded interest at the rate of 10% per annum which is on the higher side. This appeal was dismissed in default in the year 2010 and it was restored in the year 2023. The claimants are not entitled for any interest for the said period. 6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the file. This appeal is only for enhancement of compensation on account of the death of Ranbir Singh who was working in Haryana State Electricity Board as Executive Engineer. He was 42 years of age at the time of death. He succumbed to the injuries suffered due to the accident which took place on 27.04.1989. He left behind his wife and three children. 7. Learned tribunal has held that as per the salary certificate, Ranbir Singh (deceased) was getting of Rs.5490/- per month which was rounded off to Rs.5500/-. Since no other evidence was brought on record so learned tribunal has rightly placed reliance on the salary certificate. In view of the law laid down in case of “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport and others 2009 ACJ 598 and keeping in view the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 14 was required to be taken into consideration but learned tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 16. The multiplier of 14 is applicable for assessing the compensation and 1/4th of his income is to be deducted for his personal expenses since dependency left behind were 4. In the absence of any evidence on record about the slab of income tax in the financial year 1988-89, learned tribunal has rightly held that he would have been paying Rs.6000/- as income tax per annum. In the absence of any evidence on record about the slab of income tax in the financial year 1988-89, learned tribunal has rightly held that he would have been paying Rs.6000/- as income tax per annum. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal has to make some guess work for assessing the income for the purpose of granting compensation in such like cases. The rent free accommodation is only given at the place of posting. Similarly conveyance allowance was given for personal use of vehicle by deceased. So said amount cannot be added in the income of deceased. In view of the law laid down in case “National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi” 2017 (4) RCR 1009, 25% income of the deceased is to be added towards the future prospects as the deceased was 42 years of age at the time of death. Thus, the amount of compensation can be calculated as under:- Income per year Rs.5500 X 12 =66000/- Less income tax Rs. 66000-6000= 60,000 Less 1/4th personal expenses Rs.15000/­ Income for assessment Rs.60,000-15,000=45,000/­ Future prospectus (25%) Rs.45,000 X 25 divided by 100 = Rs.11250/- Total Rs.45000+ 11250=Rs.56250/- Multiplier 14 Compensation Rs.56250 X 14=Rs.7,87,500/­ Consortium Rs.40,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15000/- Total: Rs.8,57,500/- 8. In case Rahul Ganpatrao Sable Vs. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through LRs and others 2023 (3) RCR (Civil) 573, accident took place on 27.4. 1994 and appeal was decided on 5.7.2023, interest at the rate of 7.5% on additional amount payable was granted @ of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing claim petition till realization. 9. The appellants are entitled interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount (Rs.8,57,500 - 7,30,000=Rs.1,27,500/-) from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 10. Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution and thereafter restoration is no ground not to grant interest for the period from dismissal of appeal till restoration since order passed in appeal relates back to original award. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.