High Court of Punjab And Ha D Haryana
Case Details
Page 1 of 6 6 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 254 FAO-5911-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) Smt. Meena R na Rani & Others Rajinder Kuma umar & Others Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr.Nonish Kumar, Advocat for the appellants. ocate NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present appeal has been fi en filed by the claimants seeking enhancement ent of compensation of Rs.17,2 17,27,566/- granted by Motor Accident Claim Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter fter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide vide Award dated 01.03.2019 pass passed in MACP No.138 of 2017 filed under S er Sections 166 and 140 of the the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter re er referred to as “the Act”). The 6 claimants are the parents and 1 married and and 3 unmarried sisters of the de e deceased-Suraj @ Monu who was 20-21 yea years at the time of accident. 2.
Facts
Brief facts of the case are are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pl of pleadings and evidence adduced ced before it concluded that the deceased-Sura Suraj @ Monu had died due to the the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicul icular accident that took place on on 01.08.2017 due to the rash and negligent gent driving of motorcycle bearing ring registration No.HR-91-3410 (hereinafter r er referred to as “the offending ding vehicle’) being driven by respondent N t No.1, owned by respondent No.2 No.2 and insured by respondent SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) No.3. Learned rned Tribunal awarded the compen pensation as above along with Page 2 of 6 6 (cid:1) interest @ 9 9% per annum from the date date of filing the petition till realisation. 3. Learned counsel for the a nt he appellants seeks enhancement of compensat nsation on the ground that prior to as r to his death, the deceased was working as a s a skilled labourer and was ear th. earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, inco income of the deceased has been a er en assessed as only Rs.8,222/- per month as un unskilled labourer which is on er on the lower side. It is further submitted tha that only meagre amount of Rs.4 to Rs.40,000/- has been awarded to the parents o ts of the deceased under the head as head of filial consortium whereas Rs.40,000/- each ought to have been awa nts awarded to all the 6 claimants towards conso onsortium i.e. Rs.2,40,000/-. Even n on en nothing has been awarded on account of pa f pain and suffering or loss of love of love and affection. Even father of the deceased sed is neither running any busin ly. usiness nor earning handsomely. Therefore, the , the deduction of income should ha ld have been 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. . It is accordingl ingly prayed that the impugned com compensation be enhanced. 4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the is appellants. 5. I have heard learned cou counsel for the appellants and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 6. On the basis of testimony ony of PW2/eyewitness to the accident, it wa it was concluded that the deceased sed had died due to the injuries suffered by h by him in the motor vehicular ac r accident that took place on SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 01.08.2017 du 7 due to the rash and negligent dri t driving of the offending vehicle by responden dent no.1. It has been argued on b on behalf of the appellants that Page 3 of 6 6 (cid:1) the learned Tr d Tribunal has wrongly assessed th d the income of the deceased as only Rs.8,222/ 222/- per month; whereas the dece deceased was a skilled labourer and earning R ng Rs.20,000/- per month. Howeve wever, the learned Tribunal has found that at except for the bald state statement of father of the deceased/claim claimant/appellant No.2/PW1, the there is no evidence on record to prove that that the deceased was skilled lab labourer. As such the learned Tribunal had t ad taken the deceased to be an un n unskilled labourer and on the basis of notific otification of Minimum Wages preva revailing in the State of Haryana at the relevan vant time/01.08.2017, income of th of the deceased was determined as that of an f an unskilled labourer as Rs.8,22 8,222/- per month. Age of the deceased was was determined to be 20-21 years ears as per Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P3). Accor ccordingly, multiplier of 18 has b as been correctly applied. The learned Tribu ribunal further granted future pro prospects at the rate of 40% which is in con conformity with the judgment of th of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sarla Verma ma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport C rt Corporation & Another” Law Finder Doc ID c ID # 188882. Further, the contentio
Legal Reasoning
winner. It is trite law that the Tribuna ibunal is permitted to do some gues guess work and also exercise its discret scretion to fix the reasonable and ju nd just compensation, for which there c ere cannot be any straitjacket formu formula based on mathematical SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) precisio ecision. In New India Assurance Co e Company Vs. Vinish Jain and Page 5 of 6 6 (cid:1) Others thers [(2018) 3 SCC 619], the Hon'b on'ble Supreme Court has held that if at if the fixation of compensation i ion is within permissible limits, the cou e courts should normally not interfer erfere with such awards”. 9. Above said view has been r en reiterated by the Kerala High Court in “Re Reliance General Insurance Com Company Limited Vs. Adila and Others”, Law Law Finder Doc ID # 1921609, para paras 16 and 17 of which read as under:-(cid:1) “16. T 6. The other area of dispute is is that the Tribunal after awardi arding compensation under the the conventional heads has awarde arded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of ss of love and affection and Rs.10,0 .10,000/- awarded towards pain and n and sufferings. 17. In . In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v Ltd v. Vineesh.J[2018 (3) SCC 619], t 9], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has t has held that the Appellate Court c urt can permit variation of plus or m or minus 4 to 5 percent.” 10. No case law to the contrar ntrary has been cited by learned counsel for th or the appellants. 11. Accordingly, in view of the f the discussion above, I find no case is made ade out that merits interference w ce with the impugned Award. I find the com compensation awarded to the app appellants to be just and fair in the facts and and circumstances of the case. No No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a benefici eficial legislation yet, as cautione ioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the sa e same cannot be allowed to be be treated as a windfall or a source of pro f profit. Moreover, compensation a on awarded upon the death of a near and dea dear loved one cannot be made a de a market negotiation, where SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) every penny nny has to be calculated and drawn rawn. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Page 6 of 6 6 (cid:1) ‘State of Ha f Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur’ Law F w Finder Doc ID # 64043 and ‘Divisional Co al Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahade adev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held th that the amount of compens ensation should be just and reasonable, i le, it should neither be a bonanza nza nor a source of profit but at the same tim e time it should not be a pittanc tance. Thus, all that has to be determined ed in the facts of a given case ase is, that the compensation accorded is ‘j is ‘just’. In my considered view, in t , in the present case, the learned Tribunal has has awarded a very ‘just’ compensa ensation, which is in accordance with the law law laid down by the Hon’ble Sup Supreme Court and therefore, does not wa warrant the interference of this C his Court. In case of KSRTC Vs. Susamma Th a Thomas 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held tha that misplaced sympathy, generos erosity and benevolence cannot be the guidin iding factor for determining the com compensation. 12. 13.
Arguments
ention of the learned counsel for the appellant llants that deduction of 1/4th ought to have been made considering th g the fact that there were 6 claiman imants, is liable to be rejected as admittedly, th y, the deceased was a bachelor at th at the time of accident. As such, deduction of of 50% ought to have been m made. However, the learned Tribunal has m as made a deduction of 1/3rd of t of the income of the deceased SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) towards his pe is personal and living expenses keep keeping in mind the fact that the Page 4 of 6 6 (cid:1) deceased had had 3 unmarried sisters.Strictly tly speaking, the 3 unmarried sisters would b uld be dependent upon their father ther/claimant No.2. However, on grounds of eq f equity and fair play, a deduction tion of 1/3rd was made. Learned Tribunal furth urther awarded Rs.15,000/- toward ards loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000 fune ,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. 7. I find the said compensat he nsation to be just and fair in the facts and circu circumstances of the present case. T in se. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in (SC) SLP No.1 No.13931 of 2017 titled as “New Vs. ew India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & n & Others”, has held that where is ere difference in compensation is about 4 to 5 p 5 per cent only, it does not warran as, rrant interference by this Court as, such variation tion in compensation is within perm ermissible limits. 8. This above-said judgmen ment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has bee been followed by the Kerala Hig High Court in “The Managing Director, Divis Divisional Controller Versus Alikut likutty and Others” Law Finder Doc Id # 1885 1885188. Relevant para 18 of the s he said judgment is reproduced below:-(cid:1) “18. It 8. It is to be borne in mind, the accid accident occurred on 23,2,2019. It is mo is more than 2 ½ years since the res e respondents 1 to 4 have been knockin ocking at the doors of the Courts urts seeking compensation on accoun count of the death of the bread-win
Decision
In view of the above, the p he present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. 15.01.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)