High Court of Punjab And Ha D Haryana
Case Details
Page 1 of 7 7 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 261 FAO-1709-2020 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.01.2025 Smt. Parkasho asho Devi & Others Mahender & O r & Others Vs. ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Yajat Gill, Advocate Mr. Mehnaz Preet Singh Ch for the appellants. h Chahal, Advocate Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocat Mr. Rajnesh Malhotra, Adv for respondent No.3. ocate Advocate NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Prayer in the present app appeal filed by the claimants is for modificatio cation of the Award dated 15.11.201 .2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribuna bunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred t red to as “the learned Tribunal”) in MACP-300 300-2017 filed under Section 166 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereina reinafter referred to as “the Act Act”) to the extent that the appellants ma may kindly be granted compensati sation as prayed for in the claim petition before efore the learned Tribunal on accoun count of death of Raj Singh.(cid:1) 2.
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of the case are are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of p of pleadings and evidence adduce duced before it concluded that deceased-Raj Raj Singh had died due to injuries ries suffered by him in a motor vehicular acc accident that took place on 17 17.05.2017 due to rash and negligent dr driving of truck bearing registration No.HR-63B-9639 re SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) (hereinafter r er referred to as ‘the offending ing vehicle’), being driven by Page 2 of 7 7 (cid:1) respondent No t No.1, owned by respondent No.2 o.2, and insured by respondent No.3. Learned rned Tribunal awarded compensat nsation of Rs.13,96,240/- along with interest @ est @ 6% per annum from the date ate of filing the claim petition till actual realisat lisation. The three claimants are th e the widow, son and mother of the deceased sed-Raj Singh. 3. Learned counsel for the a he appellants inter alia submits that while ass assessing the compensation, the le he learned Tribunal has assessed the net incom come of the deceased as Rs.16,745 ,745/- per month. It is submitted that after his his retirement from the Army, the , the deceased was serving as a Security Guar uard since 2011, and his gross oss salary was Rs.18,078/- per month. It is su is submitted that the claimants had had proved salary certificate of the deceased sed as Ex.P5 however, the learne arned Tribunal has erroneously deducted the the Provident Fund and ESI and has has taken the monthly salary of the deceased sed as only Rs.16,745/-. Learned ned counsel contains that this deduction cou could not have been made in view view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Cou Court in “Sebastiani Lakra & Oth Others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. Ltd. & Another” Civil Appeal Nos.1 os.10588-89 of 2018 decided on 12.10.2018. It It is accordingly prayed that incom ncome of the deceased be taken as Rs.18,078/ 78/- per month. 4. It is further submitted tha that future prospects have also been applied lied on the lower side at the rate rate of 10%; whereas the same should be 20% 20% as the deceased was working ing as a Security Guard and was SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 3 of 7 7 (cid:1) retired from om the Armed Forces; and was as therefore in a ‘permanent . salaried job’. 5. It is next contended by by learned counsel for the appellants tha that the deceased was 55 years of rs of age on the date of incident. However, mult multiplier of 9 has been applied, wh , whereas multiplier of 11 ought to have been a en applied. 6. Learned counsel r for respondent No.3/Insurance r Company opp opposes the prayer made on be behalf of the appellants and submits that hat in the FIR (Ex.P1), the registra istration number of the alleged offending veh vehicle is mentioned as ‘HR-63B 3B-9609’; whereas challan had been filed in r in respect of registration number ‘H er ‘HR-63B-9639’. It is submitted that therefore fore, this casts a shadow of dou doubt cast as to whether the accident in qu n question was caused by the drive river of the offending vehicle or not. Referenc rence is also made to the observa ervations made by the learned Tribunal in Par Para 21 of the impugned Award, w d, which is as under:- “21. So far as the income of the f the deceased from pension is concerned, it has been argue rgued by learned counsel for respondent No.3- Insurance Com Company that the petitioners have not suffered any loss of incom income in this regard because as per statement of pension accou ccount Ex.P26, petitioners had received the pension of the d he deceased after his death. However, except document Ex. Ex. P26, petitioners have not placed on file any other document mentary proof showing that they had suffered any loss towards ards pension of the deceased. Perusal of the document Ex.P26 m P26 makes it clear that after the death of the deceased in May, 20 y, 2017, his pension was received SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) by the petitioner till November, ber, 2017. There is no evidence brought by the petitioners to pro prove the loss of the income of ” the deceased towards pension.” Page 4 of 7 7 (cid:1) 7. No other argument is raised on behalf of the is appellants. 8. I have heard learned cou counsel for the appellants and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 9. I find merit in the submis mission made on behalf of the appellants tha that the learned Tribunal has asses ssessed income of the deceased on the lower wer side as only Rs.16,745/- per m er month. It is admitted fact on record that th t the gross income of the deceased ased was ₹18,078/– per month. The learned T ed Tribunal has assessed income of e of the deceased as ₹16,745/– per month b h by making deductions for PF PF and ESI. In the afore-cited judgment of t of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in in Sebastiani Lakra (supra), it is held that: – SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) “14. As far as the amounts of ts of pension and gratuity are concerned, these are paid on acco account of the service rendered by the deceased to his employe ployer. It is now an established principle of service jurisprud prudence that pension and gratuity are the property of the d he deceased. They are more in the nature of deferred wages. Th s. The deceased employee works throughout his life expecting that that on his retirement he will get substantial amount as pension a on and gratuity. These amounts are also payable on death, what hatever be the cause of death. Therefore, applying the same p e principles, the said amount cannot be deducted.” 10. Ld. Counsel for the respon spondent-Insurance Company, is Page 5 of 7 7 (cid:1) unable to disp dispute this position in law. Accordin ordingly, income of the deceased is taken as ₹18 ₹18,078/– per month. 11. Next contention on behal ehalf of the learned counsel for the appellants lants is that the deceased being a ing admittedly 55 years of age, multiplier of 9 of 9 has been incorrectly applied a ed and multiplier of 11 ought to have been ap n applied; and future prospects o ts of 10% have been applied; whereas the the same ought to have been 1 n 15%. I find merit in these arguments als s also which is in conformity with t ith the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supre upreme Court in “Sarla Verma Vs. D s. Delhi Transport Corporation” (2009) AIR (S R (SC) 3104 Law Finder Doc ID ID # 188882. It also remains undisputed th d that the deceased was an ex-servi erviceman and was working as a Security Guard
Legal Reasoning
uard at Shri Balaji Security Services, ices, Gurugram since 01.11.2011. 12. As regards the contention o ion on behalf of the respondent- Insurance Com Company in respect of the disc discrepancy in the registration number of th f the offending vehicle, the releva levant reasoning of the learned Tribunal in this this regard is as under:- “14. It is not in dispute that hat the offending vehicle was recovered by the police from the the place of accident and in the supplementary statement dated dated 17.5.2017 (Ex.P4), PW1 Ranjeet Singh has duly explained h ined how he came to know about the changed registration numbe ber of the offending vehicle. His supplementary statement dated ated 17.5.2017 has also been proved by PW3 HC Yudhvir Singh, ngh, who had recorded the same during investigation of this case. case. It is duly explained that in SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 6 of 7 7 (cid:1) the number plate, the number ber of offending vehicle was mentioned as HR-63B-9609 which hich was wrong as disclosed by its driver when he came to the ey e eye-witness and disclosed that digit '9609' was wrongly printed nted but the actual number was 9639 and on the same day, supple upplementary statement of PW1 Ranjeet was written. Moreover, th er, the offending vehicle was left at spot and recovered by the p he police with the said number plate. In the accident cases, ses, the evidence cannot be scrutinised in the manner as sc as scrutinised in criminal cases where the case is to be proved be ed beyond reasonable doubts. In the motor vehicular accide ccident cases, some time during investigation the offendin nding vehicle identified and its number disclosed. Respondents dents No.1 and 2 have not challenged the investigation con conducted by the police in this case which shows that respond pondents No.1 and 2 have no grievance with the investigation c ion conducted by the police.” 13. It is established position ion in law that claim petitions under the Ac Act are to be decided on the the basis of preponderance of probabilities a ies and are not to be conducted as a as a strict criminal trial. 14. In view of the above, pre present appeal is allowed and the compensa ensation awarded to the appellants lants/claimants is re-assessed as under:- Head Income rospects (15%) Future prosp n (1/3rd) Deduction (1 r (age 55) Multiplier (ag ependency Loss of depen um Consortium xpenses Funeral expe SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Amount Rs.18,078/ Rs.2,16,936 Rs.2,49,476 Rs.1,66,317 11 Rs.1,66,317 Rs.48,000/ Rs.18,000/ x 12 = 78/- per month ,936/- per annum ,476/- per annum ,317/- per annum ,317/- x 11 = Rs.18,29,487/- 00/- x 3 = Rs.1,44,000/- 00/- state Loss of estate Total 00/- Rs.18,000/ 9,487/- Rs.20,09,48 Page 7 of 7 7 (cid:1) 15. Pending application(s) if an
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. 09.01.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)