Beena v. Ranveer Singh

Judgment

1. This order shall dispose of two appe This o appeals, i.e. FAO-2120-2003 and FA and FAO- 2121-2003 in w in which subject matter of challeng hallenge is the award dated 07.04.20

7.04.2003 passed by the lea the learned Motor Accident Claims Tri ms Tribunal, Kaithal (hereinafter refer r referred to as ‘the Tribuna ribunal’) on the ground of quantum, w tum, whereby a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- - was granted on accou account of death of husband of appel appellant No.1 in FAO-2120-2003 an and a sum of Rs.94,492 .94,492/- was granted to appellant-Na Naresh Kumar in FAO-2121-2003 2003 on

PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.18 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.2120 of 120 of 2003(O&M) -2- account of inju f injuries suffered by him, in the in the motor vehicular accident da ent dated

24.06.2001, whic which took place due to rash and neg nd negligent driving of respondent No ent No.1- driver. For the sa the sake of convenience, the facts are cts are being taken from FAO No.2120 o.2120 of 2003 titled as ‘Be Beena and others Vs. Ranveer Sin r Singh and others’.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants Lear llants-claimants in FAO No.2120 of 0 of 2003 contended that th that the husband of appellant No.1 a o.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 an s.2 and 3 was travelling fr ling from Kaithal to Cheeka on his m his motorcycle with his brother Nar er Naresh Kumar as a pillio a pillion rider when, near Bharat Petr t Petrol Pump, Siwan, due to the rash rash and negligent driving driving of respondent No.1, the acci e accident occurred, causing injuries njuries to both, and the de the deceased succumbed after reach reaching General Hospital, Kaithal. ithal. He submitted that th that the findings on Issue No.2 regar regarding quantum of compensation nsation is erroneous, as app as appellant No.1 produced income ta ome tax returns for the last four years years and deposed that the at the deceased was earning Rs.15,000 15,000/- per month from his shop deal p dealing in pesticides and es and as a karyana merchant, yet t, yet the learned Tribunal assessed sed the income at Rs.30 Rs.30,000/- per annum and depen dependency at Rs.20,000/- per annu r annum. Further, it is con is contended that the income ought to ught to have been taken as Rs.1,80,00 ,80,000/- per annum with with dependency of Rs.1,20,000/- pe per annum and, applying a multip multiplier of 16, compens nsation of Rs.19,20,000/- was p was payable. Furthermore, the learn e learned Tribunal erred in rred in awarding only Rs.10,000/- tow towards loss of consortium and loss nd loss of estate whereas R reas Rs.80,000/- ought to have been been awarded, and therefore, the aw the award passed by the the learned Tribunal deserves m es modification with enhancement ement of compensation to ion to Rs.20,00,000/-.

3. In FAO No.2121 of 2003, it was In F submitted that while appearing a aring as a witness, he prov e proved that he remained admitted i itted in a hospital at Panchkula for f a for four days and thereaf hereafter, continued treatment for nea or nearly five months as an OPD pati D patient PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.18 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.2120 of 120 of 2003(O&M) -3- and during this p this period his right leg was operate perated upon twice at Panchkula and la and he subsequently too tly took treatment from Dr. Sudeep udeep Sabharwal, Orthopaedic Surge Surgeon, Panipat where h here he remained admitted for eight t days on the first occasion and n and for three days on th on the second, incurring expenses o nses of about Rs.70,000/- on treatme treatment, conveyance and e and medical charges. He furthe further proved that he suffered 1 red 19% permanent disabi disability and produced medical bills al bills amounting to Rs.31,492/- but but the learned Tribunal ibunal ought to have allowed Rs.70 Rs.70,000/- towards medical expen expenses keeping in view t view the practical difficulty in preserv preserving all medical bills. It was furt further contended that t that the learned Tribunal erred in n d in not awarding any amount towa t towards transportation ch ion charges despite the fact that the ap the appellant, a resident of Cheeka wh ka where specialized ortho orthopaedic treatment is unavailabl ailable and hence, he had to travel travel for treatment and op and operations including open reducti reduction and plating with bone graft e grafting and subsequent r uent removal of implant, an amount ount of Rs.50,000/- ought to have b ave been awarded under th nder this head. Furthermore, it was contended that the learned Tribu Tribunal erred in not awa ot awarding any compensation for lo for loss of income during the period period of injury as the ap the appellant remained immobile an ile and unable to work in his kiry kiryana business for abou r about 14 months from where he wa he was earning Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,00 8,000/- per month, for w , for which at least Rs.70,000/- ought t ought to have been granted. Additiona itionally, the amount of R t of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards pa rds pain and sufferings and Rs.10,00 s.10,000/- towards special d ecial diet is stated to be meager and a and a minimum of Rs.50,000/- ough ought to have been award awarded. Lastly, it was contended nded that the award of Rs.38,000/ ,000/- on account of 19% 19% permanent disability is inadequ nadequate considering that the appell appellant was a young man g man of 27 years, who has to live w live with the said disability for the res the rest of his life and there refore, at least Rs.2,50,000/- ough ought to have been awarded under under this PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.18 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.2120 of 120 of 2003(O&M) -4- head. According ordingly, it was prayed that the app e appeal be allowed and the impug impugned award be modifie odified while enhancing the amount o ount of compensation.

4. Lear earned counsel for respondent N No.3-Insurance Company submit submitted that the award pa ard passed by the learned Tribunal do nal does not suffer from any irregula regularity or infirmity, and y, and that the findings recorded therei therein are well-reasoned on the basis e basis of the material avail l available before the learned Tribunal ribunal. It was accordingly contended t nded that no ground is mad is made out for interference in appeals ppeals.

5. I have heard learned counsel for th I ha for the parties and examined the reco e record, with their able as able assistance.

6. The appellants in FAO-2120-2003 The 2003 had sought to establish that that the deceased was ear as earning ₹15,000/- per month, how , however, the only material produced oduced in support thereof w ereof were the income tax returns for rns for certain years. Though it is a w is a well established fact fact that the Income Tax Returns eturns are pivotal in legal proceedi oceedings involving financ financial assessments, as it provide rovides an official and comprehens rehensive account of an in an individual's or entity's income, , however, in the present case, case, the learned Tribunal ibunal has correctly observed that the at the said returns were not supported ported by any independent ndent or corroborative evidence. Eve e. Even otherwise, the income reflec reflected therein, that is at is ₹38,000/- for the assessment yea nt year 1998-1999 (Ex.P115), ₹45,00 ₹45,000/- for the assessm sessment year 1999-2000 (Ex.P118) .P118), ₹47,000/- as per Ex.P117, a 117, and ₹49,000/- as per as per Ex.P118, does not substantiate ntiate the claim of the appellants that ts that the deceased was ea as earning ₹15,000/- per month. How h. However, since the income tax ret tax return Ex.P118 reflects flects the income of the deceased as ed as ₹49,000/- per annum, and the sa the same forms part of the of the documentary evidence placed o aced on record, therefore, this Court fi ourt finds it appropriate to ate to assess the annual income of the of the deceased at ₹49,000/- per annu er annum, instead of ₹30,00 ₹30,000/- per annum as taken by the le the learned Tribunal. PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.18 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.2120 of 120 of 2003(O&M) -5-

7. Further, the deceased was 35 year Furt 5 years of age, as reflected in the po the post- mortem report Ex port Ex.P1. In terms of the law laid do laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Co me Court in National Insu Insurance Company Limited v. Pr v. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 ( 17 (16) SCC 680, an add an addition towards future prospects pects @40% is liable to be made. Th There were four depen dependents before the learned Tribu Tribunal and thus, a deduction of n of 1/4th towards persona ersonal expenses is to be made. Th The multiplier of 16 applied by d by the learned Tribunal ibunal is in consonance with the princ e principles laid down in Sarla Verma erma v. Delhi Transport sport Corporation 2009 (6) SCC CC 121 and, therefore, the same same is affirmed. Thus, t hus, the total dependency comes to R es to Rs.8,23,104/-. However, this Co this Court finds that the am he amount awarded by the learned Tri ed Tribunal under the conventional he nal heads is wholly inadeq inadequate, inasmuch as a lump su mp sum of ₹10,000/- has been gran n granted towards loss of c ss of consortium, loss of estate and fun nd funeral expenses, which is contrary ontrary to the guidelines lai nes laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme upreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) pra). In terms thereof, the of, the appellants are entitled to ₹18,1 ₹18,150/- each towards loss of estate estate and funeral expense xpenses and ₹1,93,600/-(₹48,400/ ,400/-x4) towards loss of love and affection/consort onsortium, (escalation @10% every th very three years as per the law laid do laid down by the Hon’ble S ’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s thi’s case (supra)).

8. Consequently, the total compensatio Con ensation is re-assessed at ₹10,53,004 ,004/-, as against ₹3,30,000 30,000/- awarded by the learned Tribu Tribunal.

9. Further, in FAO No.2121 of 2003 Furt 2003, this court deems appropriate opriate to assess the month monthly income of the appellant at ₹4 ₹4,000/-, who was owning a kary karyana shop. Accordingl ordingly, the annual income of the ap the appellant is assessed at ₹48,000/ ,000/-. In view of the law l e law laid down by the Hon’ble Supre Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supr (supra), an addition of 4 n of 40% towards future prospects i pects is warranted as the appellant w llant was below 40 years o years of age. Thus, the annual income income after addition of future prospe prospects PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.18 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO No.2120 of 120 of 2003(O&M) -6- comes to ₹67,20 ₹67,200/-. Applying the multiplier o lier of 17 as suitable to the age of ge of the appellant, who w who was 27 years of age at the time of ime of accident, in terms of the judgm judgment of the Hon’ble S ’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma erma (supra) and considering the 1 the 19% permanent disab disability suffered by the appella ppellant in accordance with disabi disability certificate (Ex. .P2) proved by PW2, the loss loss of future earning is assessed sessed at ₹2,17,056/-. In n addition thereto, the appellant ellant is entitled to ₹31,492/- towa towards medical expense penses as proved by medical bills, bills, ₹10,000/- towards special diet l diet and attendant charge charges, ₹10,000/- towards transporta nsportation, ₹15,000/- towards pain pain and suffering, and and ₹15,000/- towards loss of incom income during the period of treatme treatment. Accordingly, the ly, the total compensation payable to th le to the appellant comes to ₹2,98,548 8,548/-.

10. The enhanced compensation in both The n both the appeals i.e. over and above above the compensation aw ion awarded by the learned Tribunal al shall also carry interest @7.5%

7.5% per annum from the m the date of filing of the claim petitio petition till its realization. The enhan enhanced compensation sh ion shall be payable to the appellant pellants-claimants in equal ratio in F in FAO No.2120 of 2003 f 2003 and to the appellant in FAO No O No.2121 of 2003 by respondent No ent No.3. The award passe passed by the learned Tribunal is m al is modified and both the appeals peals are allowed in above above terms.

11. Pending misc. application(s), if any, Pend if any, also stands disposed of. , 2026 March 17, 2026 Pankaj* (AMARIN ARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: ned:- Whether Reportable:- Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.18 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh