Smt. Babli Devi evi & Ors. Ram Pal& Ors v. II. FAO No
Case Details
FAO No. 1778 of of 2004 IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I. FAO No. 1778 of 2004 Date of decision: 30.10 04(O&M) 0.10.2025 Smt. Babli Devi evi & Ors. Ram Pal& Ors. Versus II. FAO No. 2945 of of 2004 National Insuran urance Company Limited. Smt. Babli Devi evi& Ors. Versus …Appellant llants …Respondent ents …Appellan llant …Respondent ents CORAM: HON’BL
Legal Reasoning
PTA N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. r. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate for App Appellants-claimants in FAO No. 177 Respondents in FAO No. 2945 of 200 Resp . 1778 of 2004 and for f 2004. Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate and Mr. Mr. Brij Bhushan Sharma, Advocate Mr. App Appellant-National Insurance Comp FAO FAO No. 2945 of 2004, and for Respondent No.3 in FAO No. 1778 o Resp ate for mpany Ltd. in 78 of 2004. Mr. Deep Inder Singh Walia, Advoca Mr. Owner of offending vehicle-respond Own In FAO No. 1778 of 2004. In FA vocate for ondent No.2 *** DEEPAK GUPTA, TA, J. Fresh power of attorney has been Fres een filed on behalf of owner of th f the offending vehicle hicle. 2. Both these appeals have arisen o Both ated en out of the same award dated 07.02.2004 pass passed by learned Motor Acciden ident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetr hetra (MACT), whereby reby compensation of ₹5,77,800/- eath - was allowed on account of death JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.31 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 1 of 3 FAO No. 1778 of of 2004 of Sh. Sanjay Ku Kumar, who was employed in Ind n Indian Army and getting salary o ry of ₹5597/- per mon onth. He was 28 years of age at th t the time of his death. 3. The factum that accident was cau The caused due to rash and negligen igent driving of mini b ini bus bearing registration No. HR0 Ram HR08-PA-0126 being driven by Ram Pal, owned by by respondent-CCS Agriculture U e University, Kaul and insured by National Insuranc rance Company Limited, is not dispu disputed. 4. As learned Tribunal has not exempt As le from mpted the Insurance Company from its liability to pa pay the compensation and has he s held it to be jointly and severall erally liable to pay com compensation amount, therefore, In FAO re, Insurance Company has filed FAO No. 2945 of 200 2004; whereas the claimants being ation eing aggrieved about compensation amount, have file e filed FAO No. 1778 of 2004 seekin eking enhancement. 5. Taking up FAO No. 2945 of 2004 Taki pany, 2004 filed by Insurance Company offending vehicle hicle is a mini bus and it is admitte itted by counsel for all the partie rties that its gross wei weight was less than 7500 kgs. It is It is also not in dispute that driver o er of the offending mi g mini bus was holding a valid drivi driving license to drive motor cycle ycle/ car etc. i.e. the ve he vehicles falling in the category of y of Light Motor Vehicle. 6. In view of this factual position, the In vi y the the case is squarely covered by the Constitutional B al Bench judgment of Hon’ble Su iance Supreme Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insuranc urance Company Limited Vs. Ram SCC Rambha Devi & Ors., 2025(3) SCC 95and as such, , Insurance Company cannot esc escape from its liability to pay th y the compensation. T n. This legal position has been fair unsel fairly conceded by learned counse for Insurance Co e Company. As such, FAO No. 29 ance . 2945 of 2004 filed by Insurance Company is here ereby dismissed. 7. Coming to FAO No. 1778 of 2004, it Com rned 4, it has been contended by learned counsel that as th as the deceased was 28 years of age to be f age, so appropriate multiplier to be applied was 17, 17, but the Tribunal has wrongly a ly applied the multiplier of 12. It i . It is also the conten ntention of learned counsel that that 50% amount towards futur uture prospects has no s not been added in the income of g the e of the deceased for computing the compensation am n amount, as per National Insuranc anay rance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 201 . 2017(16) SCC 680; inasmuch as as the deceased was permanentl ently employed in Indi Indian Army. JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.31 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of 3 FAO No. 1778 of of 2004 8. None of the aforesaid contention Non rned tions could be refuted by learned counsel for Insur nsurance Company or the owner of r of the offending vehicle. 9. As such, on re-calculation, the com As s ut to compensation amount works out to be as under:- Income of th of the deceased ₹ 5597/- per month Annual inco prospects income after adding 50% towards fut future ₹1,00,746/- Loss of ann towards self annual dependency after deducting 1 self-expenses g 1/3rd ₹67164/- Compensati (₹67164 X 1 sation on account of death X 17) ₹11,41,788/- Funeral exp not disputed expenses (as allowed by the Tribunal uted) nal and ₹20,000/- Loss of cons (as allowed onsortium/ filial consortium ed by the Tribunal and not disputed) ₹25,000/- ₹11,86,788/- Total 10. Since an amount of ₹5,77,800/- ha Sinc has already been awarded by th y the Tribunal, therefo refore, enhanced compensation w . To n works out to be ₹6,08,988/-. To take it in round und figure, the enhanced amount o be unt of compensation is held to be ₹6,09,000/-. As s As such, it is directed that claimant ants-appellants of FAO No. 1778 o 78 of 2004 shall be en e entitled compensation of ₹6,09,00 7.5% 9,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from rom the date of filing of the claim p . The im petition till actual realization. The respondents will will be jointly and severally liable able to pay the enhanced amoun ount, which shall be pa e paid in the same proportion to t y the to the claimants, as directed by the Tribunal. 11. As a sequel to above discussion, F As a on, FAO No. 2945 of 2004 filed b d by Insurance Compa mpany is dismissed; while FAO No. No. 1778 of 2004 stands disposed o ed of in the manner in r indicated above. 30.10.2025 Jiten Whe Whe hether speaking/reasoned hether reportable : Yes/No : Yes/No (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.31 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 3 of 3