04.04.2025 New India A ndia Assurance Co. Ltd v. Rupa Kumar Kumari and others
Case Details
FAO-2137 37-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 FAO-2137-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 New India A ndia Assurance Co. Ltd. .…Appellant Versus Rupa Kumar Kumari and others ....Respondents CORAM: H M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - ocate Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate e Company. for the appellant-Insurance Com NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. CM-6758-C CII-2025 Prayer in this application fil the on filed under Section 5 of the Limitation A tion Act, 1963 is for condonation of the on of delay of 39 days in filing the accompanyin panying appeal. Heard. For the reasons stated in the ap rted the application which is supported by an affida affidavit, the same is allowed; and d the and delay of 39 days in filing the accompanyin panying appeal is condoned. FAO-2137 2137-2025 (O&M) 1. The present appeal has been fil ance een filed by the appellant-Insurance Company la laying challenge to the Award da the ard dated 04.11.2024 passed by the learned Mot Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, S d to nal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learn learned Tribunal’) whereby the claim No. e claim petition bearing MACP No. RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2137 37-2025 (O&M) -2- 336 dated19 19.05.2022 filed by the claimants/ rein mants/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein under Sectio Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor V een otor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been allowed; an d; and the claimants have been of been granted compensation of ₹33,06,220 ,220/-. The 03 claimants are the: i s of the: i) widow; and ii) parents of deceased - Suraj Kumar Harijan who was st t the was stated to be 22 years old at the time of accid f accident. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of the case are that e that the learned Tribunal on the basis of ple of pleadings and evidence adduced dduced before it concluded that deceased-Su Suraj Kumar had died in a motor motor vehicular accident that took place on 19. 19.04.2022 due to rash and negli negligent driving of bus bearing registration N ation No.PB-22-G-3033 (hereinafter r after referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), be e’), being driven by respondent No. 4; owned by respondent No. 5; and insur insured by the appellant-Insurance C ance Company. Learned Tribunal awarded com ed compensation as above along wi g with interest @ 6% per annum from the da the date of filing the claim petition etition till actual realization. The amount of c t of compensation was apportioned tioned amongst the claimants as under: - 1.Ru 2.Bij 3.Ka .Rupa Kumari wife .Bijali Devi, mother .Kanhu Harijan, father 40 of th 30% of 30% of 0 of the compensation amount 0% of the compensation amount 0% of the compensation amount 3. The only ground on which the any h the appellant-Insurance Company assails the the impugned Award dated 04.11. the 04.11.2024 is that income of the deceased ha ed has been taken by the learned Tr e as ned Tribunal on the higher side as ₹15,450/- pe per month on the basis of DC Ra
Legal Reasoning
mits DC Rates. Learned counsel submits that income ncome of the deceased ought to hav the to have been assessed as per the RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2137 37-2025 (O&M) -3- relevant Min nt Minimum Wages Notification as ₹ ould ₹10,000/- per month; and could not have bee ve been assessed on the basis of DC ra DC rates. 4. In support, learned counsel for 02 sel for the appellant relies upon 02 judgments o ents of the Hon’ble Apex Court in of urt in (i)Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 2011, titled itled as Govind Yadav vs. The New ny New India Insurance Company Limited, dec , decided on 01.11.2011; (ii) Manu vs. anusha Sreekumar and other vs. The United ited India Insurance Co. Ltd., Law F and aw Finder Doc Id # 2049874 and of this Cour s Court in FAO-3235-2017 with XO as XOBJC-187-CII-2017, titled as SBI Genera neral Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rin on . Rinku and others decided on 09.03.2023. 023. It is submitted that it has been h been held in the aforesaid judgments that notiona otional income of the deceased is to s of is to be assessed on the basis of Minimum W um Wages prevalent on the date of ate of accident. It is accordingly, prayed that t that the impugned Award be set aside t aside/modified. 5. 6. No other argument is raised on ed on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel f nsel for the appellant and perused the case file se file in great detail. 7. I find no merit in the sole subm f the e submission made on behalf of the appellant. N ant. No doubt, it is the norm that the d on the income is usually assessed on the basis o asis of Minimum Wages notificatio e of fication prevalent on the date of accident. Ho . However, special wages as per DC ted; er DC rates are often times granted; and the sam e same cannot be stated to be agai by e against law. Reliance placed by learned coun d counsel for the appellant upon the is n the aforementioned judgments is misconceive nceived as, no opinion in the said ju that aid judgments has been given that income cann e cannot be assessed on the basis of DC s of DC rates. RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2137 37-2025 (O&M) -4- 8. Further, it was the pleaded case ents d case of the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 to 3 herein that at the time of deat g a f death, the deceased was doing a private job i e job in Ludhiana and was earning ₹ ver, ₹30,000/- per month. However, no evidence dence was produced on record by the eged y the claimants to prove the alleged avocation an tion and monthly income of the decea the deceased. As such, in assessing the income of th e of the deceased, the learned Tribun the Tribunal has duly taken note of the fact that ‘Th ‘The income provided in Minimum me um Wages Act, revised from time to time can can be a basic criteria or guidel of uideline to assess the income of deceased or d or injured, as the case may be. Th of e. The facts and circumstances of each case ha se has to be evaluated. No restrictio ng iction can be imposed in assessing the income o me of the deceased or the injured in r ed in order to assess just and fair compensatio sation for the dependents. The pro on provision to grant compensation under Moto otor Vehicles Act is a beneficial ike icial legislation and in such like situation, th , the restriction to assess the in as e income of deceased victim as provided un d under Minimum Wages Act is u the is unjustified’. Accordingly, the learned Trib d Tribunal had taken income of the de sued the deceased as per the rates issued by Haryana ryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam for the as for the financial year 2022-2023 as per notificati tification dated 19.01.2022 no. 7004 ated 7004-F-41/60571 (FIN-GEN), dated 1941. 21.11.1941 9. Further, on the basis of Aadh Aadhar Card of the deceased Ex. Ex. P-11, age of age of the deceased was established to the hed to be 22 years. Although, in the Post-mortem ortem Report, the age of the decease ears eceased was mentioned as 35 years of age, howe owever, age of the deceased was n was not disputed by the appellant- Insurance C nce Company and the owner and dr icle nd driver of the offending vehicle RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-2137 37-2025 (O&M) -5- before the le the learned Tribunal, as such, age of o be age of the deceased was taken to be 22 years. 10. As the deceased was 22 years ged years of age at the time of alleged accident, 40% nt, 40% towards future prospects hav the ts have been correctly added by the learned Trib d Tribunal in conformity with the law ’ble he law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Co me Court in National Insurance C ay e Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and ot nd others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The ther The learned Tribunal has further correctly ma made a deduction of 1/3rd toward here owards personal expenses, as there are three cla ee claimants; and as the deceased was e of d was 22 years of age at the time of accident, mu nt, multiplier of 18 has correctly been n y been applied as per law laid down by the Hon e Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla ort arla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation ation, Law Finder Doc Id # 18888 has 88882 The learned Tribunal has further grant r granted an amount of ₹15,000/- tow towards loss of estate; ₹15,000/- towards fune s funeral expenses. Further, an amou een amount of ₹40,000/- each has been granted to t d to the claimants towards consort t of onsortium and another amount of ₹10,000/- has been granted towards litig rned s litigation expenses. The learned Tribunal awa al awarded the compensation in follow following manner:- Heads Income Future Pros Prospects tion Deduction lier 18 Multiplier 18 f Estate Loss of Esta al expenses Funeral expe Litigation ex Loss of filial Loss of spou Total Comp with intere annum expenses f filial consortium f spousal consortium Compensation along interest @ 6% per RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Amount ₹15,450/- 40% i.e. ₹61 12 = ₹2,59,56 1/3rd i.e. ₹ ₹86,520/- = ₹1,73,040/- ₹18,150/- ₹18,150/- ₹10,000/- ₹48,400 x 2 = ₹48,400/- ₹33,06,220/ ,220/- x 6180/- (15450+6180=21630/- x 2,59,560/-) inus ₹86,520/- (₹2,59,560/- minus = ₹1,73,040/-) - x 18 = ₹31,14,720/- 0 x 2 = ₹96,800/- FAO-2137 37-2025 (O&M) -6- 11. In view of the discussion abov out above, I find no case is made out that merits erits interference with the impug l is impugned Award. The appeal is . dismissed. 12. Pending application(s) if any als
Decision
any also stand(s) disposed of. 2025 04.04.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.