Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 48 (PNJ)

Champa v. Trilok Chand

2024-01-05

VIKRAM AGGARWAL

body2024
JUDGMENT Vikram Aggarwal, J. The instant appeal has been preferred by Smt. Champa, who is the sole claimant and mother of deceased Bal Raj, who expired in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 04.11.2000. She claims enhancement in the compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short "the Tribunal"), vide award dated 01.10.2004. 2. Briefly put, the facts are that Bal Raj, who was unmarried and was 32 years old, was driving a Canter bearing Registration No.HR38-BG-4100 and was going from Faridabad to Madhya Pradesh. He was accompanied by two persons namely Rohtash and Pappu. When they reached in the area of Police Station Sadar Palwal, a truck bearing Registration No.HR38-8572 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the offending vehicle") came from behind. It was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 which struck against the Canter, as a result of which the Canter fell into the nearby ditch and struck against a eucalyptus tree. Bal Raj expired at the spot on account of his having received multiple injuries. The matter was reported to the police and an FIR is stated to have been registered against respondent No.1. It was claimed that the accident, as a result of which Bal Raj expired, had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. The age of Bal Raj was claimed to be 32 years and he was stated to have been working at a monthly salary of Rs. 4500/-. It was claimed that he used to spend Rs. 500/- per month upon himself and the remaining amount used to be handed over to the present appellant. 3. The claim petition was contested by the insurance company alone. The driver and the owner, as normally the case is, did not contest the claim petition and were proceeded against ex parte. 4. Findings on issue No.1 were recorded by the Tribunal against the driver of the offending vehicle and it was held that the accident, as a result of which Bal Raj expired, had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. 4.(ii) Under issue No.2, the age of Bal Raj was held to be 32 years. His monthly income was assessed at Rs. 3500/- per month. 4.(ii) Under issue No.2, the age of Bal Raj was held to be 32 years. His monthly income was assessed at Rs. 3500/- per month. Since Bal Raj was unmarried, 50% amount was deducted for his personal expenses and dependency was held to be 50%. The monthly dependency was, therefore held to be at Rs. 1750/- per month, which would come to Rs. 21000/- per year. Multiplier of 6' was applied and therefore, total compensation was assessed at Rs. 1,26,000/- which was rounded to Rs. 1,30,000/-. 4.(iii) Under issue No.3, it was held that respondent No.1 was not in possession of a valid driving license. 4.(iv) Under issue No.4, it was held that the offending vehicle was not insured as the contract of insurance was not complete. It was held that the insurance company would not be liable to pay compensation. However, it was held that in the first instance, the insurance company would pay the compensation but would have the right to recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 5. Aggrieved by the award, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement in compensation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation deserves to be assessed in view of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017)16 SCC 680 , Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . 8. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has, on the other hand, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 9.(ii) In so far as the age and salary of the deceased is concerned, there is no dispute, nor any argument has been addressed. In fact, learned counsel for the parties have very fairly submitted, at the time of arguments, that the monthly income and age of the deceased had been rightly assessed by the Tribunal. The monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3500/- per month. The age of the deceased was 32 years. In fact, learned counsel for the parties have very fairly submitted, at the time of arguments, that the monthly income and age of the deceased had been rightly assessed by the Tribunal. The monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3500/- per month. The age of the deceased was 32 years. The dependency of 50% was also rightly calculated by the Tribunal since the deceased was unmarried. 9.(iii) As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), future prospects would be 40% of the income of the deceased. In the present case, the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 3500/- per month and if future prospects @ 40% are added, the monthly salary of the deceased would come to Rs. 4900/- per month, i.e. Rs. 3500/- + Rs. 1400 (future prospects @ 40% of Rs. 3500/-). Since the deceased was unmarried, dependency @50% of the monthly salary, i.e. Rs. 4900/- would come to Rs. 2450/- per month and yearly dependency would come to Rs. 29400/-, i.e. Rs. 2450x12. 9.(iv) As per the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), a multiplier of 16' would need to be applied since the deceased was 32 years old. The compensation would, therefore, come to Rs. 4,70,400/- (i.e. Rs. 29400/- x 16). The compensation on account of funeral expenses is granted at Rs. 15000/- and on account of loss of estate at Rs. 15000/- and towards loss of filial consortium at Rs. 44000/-. The total compensation awarded by this Court is tabulated as under:- Sr. No. Heads Amount enhanced by this Court i) Income Rs. 3500/- ii) Future Prospects @ 40% of income of Rs. 3500/- + Rs. 1400 = Rs. 4900/- minus Rs. 2450 on account of 50% dependency Rs. 2450/- per month iii) Compensation after multiplier of 16 is applied Rs. 2450/- X 12 X 16 = Rs. 4,70,400/- iv) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15000/- v) Loss of Estate Rs. 15000/- vi) Filial Consortium Rs. 44000/- Total compensation awarded by this Court Rs. 5,44,400/- 10. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the total compensation payable to the appellant is assessed at Rs. 5,44,400/-. The same would be paid to the appellant along with interest @ 7.5 per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. 5,44,400/- 10. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the total compensation payable to the appellant is assessed at Rs. 5,44,400/-. The same would be paid to the appellant along with interest @ 7.5 per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. In so far as the findings on issues No.3 and 4 are concerned, the same are maintained and the insurance company would be at liberty to recover the compensation from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 11. Needless to mention here that out of the total compensation payable to the appellant, the amount already paid (if any) in compliance of the impugned award would be adjusted.