Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 779 (PNJ)

Amarjit Kaur v. Amarjit Singh

2023-02-20

ARCHANA PURI

body2023
JUDGMENT Archana Puri, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the Award dated 20.07.1993 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, thereby, granting compensation, on account of death of Kuldip Singh, in a motor vehicular accident. 2. On appraisal of the evidence adduced, learned Tribunal vide impugned Award, had granted compensation to the extent of Rs.4,20,000/-, qua death of Kuldip Singh, in the accident, which took place on 16.10.1991, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-Amarjit Singh, while driving fiat car bearing registration No.PAV-410. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the extent of compensation, so granted, the appellants-claimants have filed the present appeal, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation. 4. So far as, the fact of accident and manner of its taking place as well as the liability of the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, to be joint and several, are concerned, it is pertinent to mention that no appeal has been filed by these persons, to dispute the liability fastened upon them. 5. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants, only with regard to the interest, having not been granted, from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the decision of the same. 6. Now, it is submitted by learned legal aid counsel for the appellants that even though, at the time of filing of the appeal, only the denial of interest on the awarded amount, was challenged, but however, the compensation, so worked upon, is also not just and reasonable, which is also required to be taken care of. It is submitted that the compensation granted to the extent of Rs.4,20,000/-, is on lower side, which requires extensive enhancement. It is further submitted that there is no restriction upon the Tribunal/Court to grant the compensation, exceeding the amount, so claimed, even though, at first instance, only the appeal was filed to challenge the denial of interest. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that the compensation, so granted, is just and reasonable. The appeal sans merit and the same be dismissed. 8. The Motor Vehicles Act is in the nature of social welfare legislation and its provisions make it clear that compensation should be justly determined. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that the compensation, so granted, is just and reasonable. The appeal sans merit and the same be dismissed. 8. The Motor Vehicles Act is in the nature of social welfare legislation and its provisions make it clear that compensation should be justly determined. In Helen C. Rebello and others v. Maharashtra SRTC and Anr., 1999 (1) SCC 90 , the Bench, held the following on the contours of 'just' compensation:- "The word "just", as its nomenclature, denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness having a large peripheral field. The largeness is, of course, not arbitrary; it is restricted by the conscience which is fair, reasonable and equitable, if it exceeds; it is termed as unfair, unreasonable, unequitable, not just." 9. Even in Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, it has been held that the just compensation is adequate compensation and the Award must be just that- 'no less and no more'. The plea of the victim suffering from a cruel twist of fate, when asking for some more, is not extravagant, but it is for seeking appropriate recompense, to negotiate with the unforeseeable and the fortuitous twists, in his life. Therefore, while the money awarded by Courts can hardly redress the actual sufferings of the injured victim, the courts can make a genuine attempt to help restore the self-dignity of such claimant, by awarding 'just compensation'. 10. At this stage, it is important to make reference to the decision rendered in Nagappa v. Gurdayal Singh and others, 2003(2) SCC 274 , wherein, while making reference to various provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, it has been concluded that there is no restriction that the compensation could be awarded only upto the amount claimed by the claimant. It was held that in an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is - it should be 'Just' compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. Considering the various provisions, it was then observed as herein given:- "9. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to 'make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just'. Only embargo is - it should be 'Just' compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. Considering the various provisions, it was then observed as herein given:- "9. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to 'make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just'. Therefore, only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be 'just'. There is no other limitation or restriction in its power for awarding just compensation." 11. Further, the aforesaid decision was relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in latest case titled as Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors., 2022(4) RCR (Civil) 553, wherein, it was observed as herein given:- "14. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per the decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa v. Gurdayal Singh and others (2003) 2 SCC 274 , it was observed that under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount." 12. In this backdrop, it is pertinent to mention that even though, the denial of interest component, has been challenged in the present appeal, but however, the compensation, so granted by the Tribunal, as such, cannot be considered to be 'just' and 'reasonable' and precisely on this account, even though, it was not challenged by way of this appeal, at the appropriate time, but however, submission relating to the same, which has been made, during the course of arguments by learned legal aid counsel, representing the appellants-claimants, can be taken into consideration. On this account, the compensation, so granted, requires re-appraisal. 13. So far as, the avocation followed by Kuldip Singh, is concerned, it is essential to note that it is the specific claim of the appellants-claimants about the deceased to be running a cloth shop, of which, he was sole proprietor, under the name and style of M/s Kuldip Textiles. His monthly earnings are asserted to be Rs.3,000/-. 13. So far as, the avocation followed by Kuldip Singh, is concerned, it is essential to note that it is the specific claim of the appellants-claimants about the deceased to be running a cloth shop, of which, he was sole proprietor, under the name and style of M/s Kuldip Textiles. His monthly earnings are asserted to be Rs.3,000/-. However, the balance sheet of the deceased, has been proved as Ex.P1, which reveals about the earnings of the deceased to be Rs.28,000/- per annum. Taking, it to be so, his monthly earnings comes to be Rs.2333/-. 14. Considering the number of dependents on the deceased, i.e. widow, children and father, the deduction, on account of person expenses, has to be 1/4th, i.e. Rs.583/-. The residue amount comes to Rs.1750/-. 15. As per National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, keeping in view the age of the deceased to be 40 years, addition on account of future prospects is to be made to the extent of 25%, which comes to Rs.437/-. Thus, total earnings of the deceased comes to be Rs.2187/- and annual earnings comes to be Rs.2187x12=Rs.26,244/-. 16. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, the suitable multiplier as per Sarla Verma's case (supra) is 15' instead of 20' as applied by the Tribunal. Therefore, by applying the suitable multiplier of 15', the loss of dependency is worked upon as Rs.26,244x15=Rs.3,93,660/-. 17. Besides the aforesaid, it is pertinent to mention that in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018(18) SCC 130 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and others, 2020 SCC Online 410, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that consortium is not limited to 'spousal consortium' and it also includes 'parental consortium' and 'filial consortium'. It was held that apart from spousal consortium, 'parental' and 'filial' consortium is also payable. Endorsing this view, in The New Assurance Company Limited v. Smt.Somwati and others, Civil Appeal No.3093 of 2020, decided on 07.09.2020, the conclusion given in the impugned judgments of the High Court, awarding consortium to each of the claimants, was held to be in accordance with law, which does not warrant any interference in the case under consideration. 18. Endorsing this view, in The New Assurance Company Limited v. Smt.Somwati and others, Civil Appeal No.3093 of 2020, decided on 07.09.2020, the conclusion given in the impugned judgments of the High Court, awarding consortium to each of the claimants, was held to be in accordance with law, which does not warrant any interference in the case under consideration. 18. In Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the extent of consortium which should be paid is stated to be Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimant and for the loss of estate, it is Rs.15,000/- as well as for the funeral expenses, it is Rs.15,000/-, which requires 10% enhancement, after a period of three years, which has since passed by. In the light of the same, appellants-claimants, are entitled to compensation, on the count of 'loss of consortium' to the extent of Rs.44,000/- each. Besides the same, they are also entitled to Rs.16,500/- as loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- as funeral expenses. 19. Thus, loss of dependency comes to be Rs.3,93,660/-, loss of consortium comes to be Rs.2,64,000/- (Rs.44,000/- to each of the appellant), Rs.16,500/- as loss of estate and Rs.16,500/-, as funeral expenses. Therefore, the total comes to be Rs.6,90,660/-. 20. So far as, the interest component is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that the impugned Award is totally silent qua the interest to be paid, during the pendency of the claim petition, till its decision. However, it only speaks about the contingent interest to be paid only, if the award amount is not paid by the insurance company, within a period of two months, from the date of pronouncement of the order. However, it should be noted that even though, motor accident claim tribunal is benevolent piece of legislation, but however, no reason, as such, has been assigned by the Tribunal for denial of the interest to the claimants, during the period, for which the claim petition remained pending before the Tribunal. Thus, the finding on the denial of interest, is palpably wrong. However, the appellants-claimants are also held interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the pronouncement of the Award. Besides the same, for the enhanced amount, the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the present appeal, till realization. 21. With the above observations, the present appeal stands allowed. Besides the same, for the enhanced amount, the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the present appeal, till realization. 21. With the above observations, the present appeal stands allowed. The impugned Award dated 20.07.1993 stands modified, to the extent, as indicated aforesaid. The remaining terms of the impugned Award, shall remain same.