02.09.2025 RAM PIYARI AND ORS. … v. KULWANT SINGH AND ORS
Case Details
1 FAO-1357-2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1357-2009 (O&M) Reserved on: 20.08.2025 Pronounced on: 02.09.2025 RAM PIYARI AND ORS. …..Appellants Vs KULWANT SINGH AND ORS. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate for Mr. Vaneet Thakur, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Shamsher Kaur, Advocate for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company. HARKESH MANUJA, J. **** [1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 21.10.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum. Brief Facts [2]. A claim petition came to be filed before the ld. Tribunal, praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) along with the interest @ 18% per annum on account of death of Bhag Chand in a vehicular accident which took place on 24.03.2005 while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1-driver. [3]. Learned Tribunal after appraisal of evidence on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/ driver and after assessing income of deceased @ 3,500/- per month as a skilled labour and making deductions of 1/3rd towards personal expenses, awarded compensation in the following manner:- TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.04 23:16 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 FAO-1357-2009 (O&M) S.No. Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs.) 1. Compensation 2. Loss of Estate 3. Funeral Expenses 4. Loss of Consortium 5. Total 4,20,000/- 2,000/- 5,000/- 2,500/- 4,29,500/- rounded off to 4,30,000/- Further, liability was jointly and severally fastened upon the driver, the owner and the Insurance Company and the compensation amount was ordered to be disbursed in the following manner:- Claimant No. 1 (widow of deceased) Rs. 1,80,000/- Claimant No. 2 (minor daughter of deceased) Rs. 50,000/- Claimant No. 3 (minor son of deceased) Rs. 50,000/- Claimant No. 4 (minor son of deceased) Rs. 50,000/- Claimant No. 5 (father of deceased) Rs. 50,000/- Claimant No. 6 (mother of deceased) Rs. 50,000/- [4]. Being aggrieved against the award dated 21.10.2008, the present appeal was preferred by the appellants for enhancement of compensation and for modifying the impugned award passed by the Ld. Tribunal, as per the latest law. Facts as specified in the claim petition about the manner of accident and the issue regarding negligence of the driver have been recorded in favour of claimants by the Ld. Tribunal, and being not under challenge, are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
Legal Reasoning
[5]. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants assailed the award while submitting that earning of the deceased was to the tune of Rs. 18,000/- per month as he was diploma holder from National Council for Vocational Training, TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.04 23:16 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 FAO-1357-2009 (O&M) Sirsa under the Ministry of Labour, Government of India in the trade of radio and television mechanic and was a skilled and perfect mechanic alongside maintaining a Mini Dairy Farm and selling milk therefrom. It was further submitted that the above fact was duly proved from the deposition of the appellant/claimant No. 1 as well as Gaja Nand (PW-2) which was not rebutted by the respondents by leading any evidence and therefore, Ld. Tribunal went wrong while having assessed monthly income @ 3,500/- per month. Furthermore, it was submitted that deduction @ 1/3rd towards self expenditure by the deceased was on the higher side besides funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium also been assessed on the lower side. [6]. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3- Insurance Company submitted that the interest @ 9% was on the higher side and the same is liable to be reduced @ 7.5 % per annum. Learned counsel further submitted that as the income of the deceased was not convincingly proved, Ld. Tribunal, rightly assessed the same as Rs. 3,500/- per month, and thus, appellants/claimants have been adequately compensated and that the present appeal was liable to be dismissed. [7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants. Discussion Question of Income Assessed [8]. In the present case, in Ram Piyari (wife of deceased) and Gaja Nand (brother of deceased/ eye-witness of the accident) while appearing as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively, submitted that the deceased was a diploma holder having experience in the field of television, radio and electrical fittings; running a shop TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.04 23:16 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 FAO-1357-2009 (O&M) in New Mandi, Sirsa and apart from this he was also maintaining a small dairy farm, and thus, was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month, although no documentary evidence to support the same was placed before the Tribunal in this regard except a certificate showing the skill of the deceased in his trade. Accordingly, learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased @ 3,500/- per month considering him as a skilled labour. In this regard observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Kubra Bibi vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.”, reported as 2023(3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 23, to the effect that in the absence of definite proof of income, the social status of the deceased is to be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in unorganized sector and the notional income in any event is required to be taken into consideration may help the cause of the appellant. Relevant para from this judgment is reproduced hereunder: “7. In a matter of the present nature where the compensation is sought and even in absence of definite proof of the income, the social status of the deceased is to be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in unorganized sector and the notional income in any event is required to be taken into consideration. The fact that the deceased had three dependents to be cared for and had claimed that he was working as a mechanic, the amount payable to an unskilled labour, cannot be the basis and in that circumstance when he was a skilled person, the daily income at Rs. 200 per day in any event could have been taken even if the income from jeep transport business was discarded for want of documents. More so in a circumstance, where the MACT had referred to TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.04 23:16 I agree to specified portions of this document 5 FAO-1357-2009 (O&M) the evidence available on record and then arrived at its conclusion, the re-appreciation of the evidence by the High Court is without being sensitive to nature of lis before it.” [9]. Considering the facts of the present case, Ram Pyari (wife of deceased), while deposing as PW-1, stated that her husband was a trained person having the diploma in trade of radio and television mechanic and was running a shop; besides maintaining a mini dairy farm and earning Rs. 18,000/- per month, it cannot be denied that he was maintaining his family including his wife, 3 minor children and aged parents and was the only bread winner of his family. In such circumstances, assessing the income of deceased as Rs. 3,500/- per month would not be appropriate as in the given facts it would be proper in case the income of deceased is assessed at a lump sum amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month, considering him to be a skilled labour besides maintaining dairy farming. [10]. So far the contention made by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that as far as deduction is concerned, one-third of the deceased’s income towards personal expenses was on the higher side. The said submission is justified in view of “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transort Corporation and another,” reported as 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, wherein it was held that in case the number of dependent family members were 4 to 6, 1/4th would be deducted as personal expenses from the total income. Relevant para of the judgment is culled out as under:- “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362], the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.04 23:16 I agree to specified portions of this document 6 FAO-1357-2009 (O&M) of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one- fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family member exceeds six.” [10.1] In the instant case, the Ld. Tribunal had deducted one-third (1/3rd) of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses without taking into consideration the number of dependents of the deceased who are widow, three minor children and aged parents. As such in view of the above cited judgment, 1/4th deduction towards the personal expenses would be proper. Question of Compensation under Conventional Heads [11]. Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (supra), “National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & others”, reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 and “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur”, reported as (2021) 11 SCC 780 compensation awarded under conventional heads are also required to be re- assessed. Thus, the appellants are held entitled for Rs. 18,000/- as compensation under the head of funeral expenses and Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate. Loss of consortium is assessed to the tune of Rs. 48,000 x 6 (Rs. 2,88,000/-) as appellants being spouse, parents and children of deceased are also entitled for spousal, parental and filial consortium. [12]. Now, the question arises how the compensation is to be distributed among the legal heirs. In this regard it may be taken into account that from the material available on record it is evident that appellant No. 1- widow did not TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.04 23:16 I agree to specified portions of this document 7 FAO-1357-2009 (O&M) remarry and she besides her minor children were solely dependent upon the deceased, in comparison to parents of the deceased i.e. appellant No. 5 & 6 who still have one other son to look upon for maintenance; accordingly appellant No. 1 is held entitled for 60% of the compensation amount whereas appellant No. 2- 4 & 6 (minor children and mother) be granted the remaining 40%. It may be clarified here that the aforementioned ratio of 60:40 would be minus the consortium as all the appellants/claimants shall separately/individually be entitled for consortium in their favour. Conclusion [13]. In view of the discussion made herein above, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for the grant of compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Nature Amount (in Rupees) 1. Annual Income of Deceased Rs. 84,000/- 2. Add 40% of Future Prospects Rs. 33,600/- 3. Total Income (Rs. 84,000+ Rs. 33,600) Rs. 1,17,600/- 4. Deduction (1/4) Rs. 29,400/- 5. Loss of Income after applying multiplier of Rs. 14,11,200/- 18 as per age of 32 years (88,200 x 16) 6. Funeral Expenses 7. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 8. Total Compensation Rs. 14,47,200/- 9. Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 4,30,000/- Enhanced Amount Rs. 10,17,200/- Thus, the appellant/widow is entitled for Rs.6,10,320/- and appellant No. 2-4 & 6 i.e. minor children and mother of the deceased are entitled for Rs. 4,06,880/- as compensation. TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.04 23:16 I agree to specified portions of this document 8 FAO-1357-2009 (O&M) [14]. Similarly, the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for following amount of compensation as consortium:- Sr. No. Name/Appellants No. Consortium Amount 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ram Piyari (widow) Suman (minor daughter) Parveen (minor son) Monu @ Amandeep (minor son) Nand Ram (father of deceased) Gomti (mother of deceased) Rs. 48,000/- Rs. 48,000/- Rs. 48,000/- Rs. 48,000/- Rs. 48,000/- Rs. 48,000/- [15]. In the view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, reported as (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as “Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, the grant of interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization is justified. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. [16]. In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands
Decision
disposed of. [17]. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. September 02, 2025 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.04 23:16 I agree to specified portions of this document