Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Ram Ratti & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 30 Aug 2010
- Bench
- K KANNAN
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 170
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----- Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? To be referred to the reporters or not ?
2.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J. (Oral) ----
The Insurance Company is in appeal on quantum, having had the benefit of permission for defence on all grounds under Section 170 of the MV Act.
The deceased was aged 47 years of age and was employed in Electricity Board. He was drawing a salary of Rs.7,470/- and his net salary as found in the salary certificate was Rs.5,898/-. He also owned agricultural lands of four acres. The claimants were widow, two children and mother. The Tribunal took the income of Rs.7,470/- per month without making any provision for increase in salary and took the income lost from the land to Rs.3,000/- per month.
The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the land was still available and the Tribunal could not FAO No.31 of 2006(O&M) - 2 - have taken the entire amount of income lost as going towards the compensation, failing to note that the income was still realisable from the same land after the accident to the other members. I would factor a situation where they would have lost on managerial abilities of the deceased and that could be worked at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and annually it would at least cost to Rs.12,000/- to hire the services of any other person to look after four acres of land. Even if the amount is reduced from Rs.36,000/- to Rs.12,000/-, I would provide for a 30% increase as the possible increase in salary which he would have obtained if he had served in the Electricity Department. The Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses but in a case where there were four dependents, I would think the appropriate deduction would be 1/4th and would take the remaining 3/4th as going towards the contribution to the family. If the amount were therefore to be re-worked providing for a 30% increase on the gross salary which was still less than the taxable limit and take Rs.12,000/- to be his annual loss of income towards agricultural operations, the amount that would be worked out would be still higher than the amount which has been determined by the Tribunal at Rs.9,41,500/-.
Under the circumstances, I do not want to elaborate further on the actual compensation payable since there is no claim for any enhancement at the instance of the claimants. I retain the award and dismiss the appeal filed by the insurer. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE
30.08.2010 sanjeev
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 170.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 30 Aug 2010. The bench was K KANNAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.