Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 862 (PNJ)

Raj Kumar v. Vikas Chaudhary

2023-02-23

RITU TAGORE

body2023
JUDGMENT Mrs. Ritu Tagore, J. (Oral) Appellants-claimants have challenged the award dated 25.08.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) on ground of inadequate compensation. 2. Deceased Chhaya, died in a motor vehicular accident dated 13.11.2016 caused by respondent No.1-driver while driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No.DL-8C-AC-7029, in a rash and negligent manner. 3. Claimants-parents filed a petition under sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondents (driver, owner and insurer) on appearance filed their respective pleadings. After the contest, the Tribunal granted Rs. 17,45,000/- as compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants urged the Tribunal determined the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, failed to take into consideration the age of deceased, that was 23 years and that she was a final year student of B.Sc. (Honours) Nursing, in Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing, University of Delhi. Even an entry level staff nurse in a Govt, college or in a public sector corporation, if recruited, would get a salary between Rs.38,000/- to Rs.45,000/- per month. A B.Sc./M.Sc. Nursing graduate employed either as a nursing tutor or instructor in a nursing college or a school gets approximately a salary Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, on completion of the course, the deceased would have got a salary not less than Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. To support his arguments, he referred to authority 'S.Saraswathv and another v. A. Elumalai', 2017 ACJ 1036 and 'Ashvinbhai Javantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and another'. 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 543. Learned counsel by placing reliance on 'Kirti and another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited', 2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 478 urged that future prospects may also be granted on the notional income. Further by referring to the judgments National Insurance Company Limited, v. Pranav Sethi and others' (2017) 16 SCC 680 . N. Jayasree and Ors. v. Cholamandlam MS General Ins. Co. Ltd. 2021 ACJ 2685 and 'Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram (a) Chuhru Ram and others' (2018) 18 SCC 130 urged for grant of conventional heads as per the principles laid there in, and prayed to reassess the compensation. 5. N. Jayasree and Ors. v. Cholamandlam MS General Ins. Co. Ltd. 2021 ACJ 2685 and 'Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram (a) Chuhru Ram and others' (2018) 18 SCC 130 urged for grant of conventional heads as per the principles laid there in, and prayed to reassess the compensation. 5. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company urged that the Tribunal has rightly determined the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. However, could not deny the fact that evidence on record shows that the deceased was a student of B.Sc. Nursing and was 23 years at the time of her death. The learned counsel, however, stated that the amount granted towards conventional heads needs to be reassessed in accordance with the observations made in Pranay Sethi (supra). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the paper-book. 7. In the authority titled 'S.Saraswathy and another v. A. Elumalai'. 2017 ACJ 1036 . the deceased was a final year Engineering student, who had met with fatal accident on 05.11.2021 and notional income of the deceased was taken at Rs.20,000/- p.m. by the Madras High Court. In 'Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and another', 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 543 (SC). the deceased was a young boy aged 19 years and was a student of Medicine, who died in a motor vehicular accident on 12.07.2002. His notional income was determined at Rs.25,000/-per month. In 'Basanti Devi and Anr. v. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors'. 2022 (1) RCR (Civil) 516 held that if no supporting evidence for actual income coming, potentiality to earn can be considered. In aforesaid case deceased was a bachelor of engineering in computer technology, his income was taken at Rs 20,000 p.m. 8. It cannot be denied that in present times, there is an enormous demand for trained nursing staff in India and in abroad. Undisputedly, there is a bright future in Govt, as well as in the private sector for nursing staff and young recruits get handsome income/salaries after completing their professional course. This Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred in taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month by disregarding inflation and the tremendous increase in demand for health care staff, including trained nurses; their salaries are also on the rise. This Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred in taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month by disregarding inflation and the tremendous increase in demand for health care staff, including trained nurses; their salaries are also on the rise. Thus, the notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.20,000/- per month. 9. The grant under the conventional heads given by the Tribunal is also not in consonance with the observations made in Pranay Sethi (supra). The appeal has been filed by the parents of the deceased, who was unmarried at the time of accident. In view thereof, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased needs to be taken at half of the monthly income of the deceased. There was also no dispute with respect to the age of the deceased; she was 23 years old. The selection of multiplier of 18 as made by the Tribunal is not in dispute. Accordingly, compensation is re-assessed as under :- Sr. No. Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Income Rs.20,000/- 2. 40% future prospects Rs.8,000/- 3. 1/2 deduction towards personal expenses Rs.14,000/- 4. Total income Rs.14,000/- 5. Multiplier 18 i.e. Rs. 14,000 x 12 x 18 (being the age of 23 years) Rs.30,24,000/- 6. Loss of estate and funeral expenses (Rs. 16,500/- each) Rs.33,000/- 7. Loss of consortium (spousal, filial and parental) i.e. Rs. 44,000/- x 2 Rs.88,000/- 8. Total Compensation Rs.31,45,000/- 9. Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.17,45,000/- 10. Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.14,00,000/- 10. The respondent-company is, hereby, directed to pay the claimants-appellants the enhanced amount of compensation Rs.14,00,000/-(Rupees Fourteen lakhs only) awarded hereinabove, over and above the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal, at the rate of interest as granted by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, with the Tribunal. Remaining conditions of disbursal of the amount as given by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. Needless to mention that the amount, if any, already deposited by the insurance company shall be adjusted. 11. Additionally, claimants are ordered to be given Rs.15,000/- (to be paid by the Insurance Company) as litigation expenses in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled 'Sidram v. The Divisional Manager. United India Insurance Co. Needless to mention that the amount, if any, already deposited by the insurance company shall be adjusted. 11. Additionally, claimants are ordered to be given Rs.15,000/- (to be paid by the Insurance Company) as litigation expenses in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled 'Sidram v. The Divisional Manager. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another' 2023 (1) RCR (Civil) 44. 12. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 13. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stand disposed of.