1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT v. FAO-1290-2025
Case Details
Page 1 of 5 5 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 231 Yogendra Kum Kumar Nand Kumar ar & Others Vs. FAO-1290-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 16.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Ms. Shikha Yadav, Advocate cate for ocate Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocat for the appellant. NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present appeal has been f nd en filed by the claimant/husband of the dece eceased Rinki, seeking enhance of ancement of compensation of Rs.26,54,400/ 00/- awarded by the Motor Acci nal Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter re er referred to as “the Tribunal”), v 24 l”), vide Award dated 12.12.2024 passed in MAC MACT Case No.636 dated 01.10.20 & 0.2021 filed under Sections 166 & 140 of the M e Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter r he ter referred to as “the Act”). The sole claimant ant is the husband of the decea in ceased Rinki. In the accident in question, the the wife and daughter of the appel ue ppellant had suffered injuries due to which they hey had died. A separate Claim Peti 21 Petition No.637 dated 01.10.2021 was filed by th y the appellant in respect of his de er. deceased four year old daughter. The appellant lant was awarded Rs.3 lakh for the d he he death of his daughter. Both the above-said Cla
Decision
d Claim Petitions were disposed of ed of by this common Award dated SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 12.12.2024. However, challenge in the pre Page 2 of 5 5 (cid:1) he present appeal is only qua the compensation tion awarded on account of death he ath of wife of the appellant. The above said compensation was awarded alo er along with interest @ 9% per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case are on are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of p of pleading and oral & documentar it ntary evidence adduced before it concluded tha that deceased Rinki/wife of the a he he appellant had died due to the injuries suffer ffered by her in a motor vehicula on cular accident that took place on 22.08.2021 at at about 6am due to the rash a ck sh and negligent driving of truck bearing regist egistration No.HR-45-B-8128 (here he (hereinafter referred to as “the offending veh vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The ed The offending vehicle was owned by respondent dent No.2 and insured by responden ndent No.3. 3. The only ground on which he hich the learned counsel for the appellant assa assails the impugned Award is that ion hat out of the total compensation amount of Rs f Rs.26,54,400/-, the appellant ha nly t has been held entitled for only 1/3rd share i. re i.e. Rs.8,84,800/-. It is submitt rd mitted that the remaining 2/3rd amount has b as been directed to be disbursed to ed d to the parents of the deceased Rinki. It is con contended that this could not have at ave been done given the fact that no Claim Petit etition has been filed by the parent so, rents of the deceased. In doing so, the learned T d Tribunal has placed reliance up in upon judgment of this Court in FAO-7409-201 2015 titled as “Kamal Verma Vs. Ja on s. Jai Nand & Others” decided on 11.03.2019. However, learned Tribunal has aid has wrongly relied upon the said SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) judgment as t as the same is distinguishable on Page 3 of 5 5 (cid:1) aid on facts inasmuch as in the said case, the ma marriage between the parties w ek; s was only of about one week; whereas in the n the present case, the appellant wa for t was married to the deceased for about 5 year years. It is accordingly prayed t be d that the impugned Award be modified and and the entire compensation am be n amount of Rs.26,54,400/- be released to the o the appellant. 4. 5. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned co nd counsel for the appellant and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 6. The learned Tribunal had in had awarded compensation in respect of dec deceased Rinki/wife of the appellan ellant in following manner:- x 12 = = - ture Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.43,200/- iv) iii) (annualised ead Sr. No. Head onthly notional income Mont i) ultiplicand Multi ii) ultiplier 12) multi 0% of (i) to be added as future 40% rospects of annual income prosp 6 to ultiplier (deceased between 26 to Multi ling 0 years) as per Sarla Verma’s ruling 30 ye oss of dependency (Rs.1,51,200/- Loss 17) oss of estate Loss o uneral expenses Funer Conso onsortium for claimants otal Total vi vii) viii) v) Amount Rs.9,000/- by Rs.9,000/- by Rs.1,08,000/- = Rs.1,51,200/- 17 x Rs.25,70,400/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.48,000/- Rs.26,54,400/- 7. The learned Tribunal had fu ad further reasoned as follows:- “31. However, since during the ar e arguments it was informed by learned counsel for claimant tha t that parents of deceased Rinki are also alive but they have not b not been made claimants in this SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 4 of 5 5 (cid:1) case. It is appropriate to note tha e that compensation cannot be a bonanza, source of profit or large largesses. Equally true is that the Tribunal has an obligation to a to assess just and reasonable compensation. Deceased in this c his case was only aged 30 years and was having only one daught ughter who has already expired and claimant is already in service ice. In the given circumstances, loss of dependency is required to ed to be assessed in the light of the present case. Claimant/husb /husband is, therefore, entitled only for 1/3rd share of the compe mpensation amount i.e. 1/3rd of 25,54,400/- i.e ₹8,84,800/- Refer eference in this regard is made on United India Insurance Co Company Limited vs. Kamal Verma & Ors., FAO no.7409 of 20 of 2015 (P&H).” 8. Learned counsel for the the appellant has sought to distinguish the the above-said judgment in Kama amal Verma (Supra) on facts by submitting tha g that the length of marriage in bo in both the cases was different. However, the the said argument of the appellant lant is misconceived. On a direct Court query, i , it has not been denied by learn arned counsel for the appellant that parents o ts of the deceased in Supra case we e were alive. As per the provision of section 1 n 166 of the Act, ‘Legal repres presentatives’ are entitled to compensation tion. Parents of the decease ased are very much legal representative atives as per law. Reference may b ay be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supr Supreme Court in “Sadhana Tom Tomar & Others Vs. Ashok Khushwaha & a & Others” Law finder doc ID # 2 # 2705152, wherein it has been held that: – SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 5 of 5 5 (cid:1) “B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sect Section 166 - Definition of "legal representative" - Court held that that father and younger sister of deceased are legal representative atives eligible for compensation, even if not financially independen ndent - MV Act calls for a liberal interpretation to ensure just and f and fair compensation. 9. Further, relevant part of Para 13 13 of the afore-said judgment is as follows:- “13…This Court in Gujarat SRTC RTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234], observed th d that a legal representative is one, who suffers on account of t of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child.” 10. As such, I find no error rror in the impugned Award. Moreover, it m it may also be pointed out that hat the above-said judgment in Kamal Verma rma (Supra) has been upheld by the the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 1. d 1.7.2019 passed in SLP (C) nos. 12 s. 12392–12393 of 2019 titled as ‘Kamal Verma rma versus United India Insurance C ce Company Limited and others.’ 11. 12. 16.05.2025 Sunena In view of the above, prese resent appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: SUNENA 2025.05.16 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)