High Court of Punjab And Ha D Haryana
Case Details
Page 1 of 5 5 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 245 Pinkesh & Oth Others Vikram & Oth Others FAO-4700-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.02.2025 Vs. ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Ms. Komal Rana, Advocate Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advo for the appellants. cate for Advocate Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advoca for respondent No.3/Insura *** vocate surance Company. NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. Present appeal has been en filed by the claimants seeking enhancement ent of compensation of Rs.9,52,20 2,200/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claim laims Tribunal Gurugram vide Awa Award dated 04.05.2019 passed in MACT Case ase No.11 of 03.02.2017 filed und under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1 ct, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as o as “the Act”). The 5 claimants are the wife a ife and children of the deceased ed-Birender @ Virender who is stated to have ave been about 55 years of age at t at the time of accident. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of the case are are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pl f pleadings and oral & documentar ntary evidence adduced before it concluded tha that the deceased-Birender @ Vi Virender had died due to the injuries suffer ffered by him in a motor vehicular ular accident that took place on 09.09.2016 due to the rash and negligen ligent driving of truck bearing registration N n No.HR-55T-5527 (hereinafter re r referred to as “the offending SUNENA 2025.02.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 2 of 5 5 (cid:1) vehicle”) by by respondent No.1. The offend ending vehicle was owned by respondent N t No.2 and insured by respond ondent No.3. Learned Tribunal awarded com compensation as above along with with interest @ 7% per annum from the date ate of filing the petition till realisati isation. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the ap e appellants seeks enhancement of compensati sation primarily on the ground that that income of the deceased has been taken on n on the lower side as only Rs.8100 100/- per month. It is submitted that the claim laimants/appellants had led sufficien icient evidence to prove that the deceased was was earning about Rs.6 lakh per a er annum by doing agricultural work and by by selling and purchasing animal imals. Even the Jamabandi was produced whi which clearly reflects that the dece deceased was having 14 acres of land. However ever, these facts and evidence have have not been considered by the learned Tribu ribunal while passing the impugn ugned Award. It is accordingly prayed that th t the impugned Award be modified ified. 4. No other argument is made 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. It is first and foremos most to be noted that the claimants/app /appellants No.1 to 4 herein, are th e the 2 major sons and 2 major daughters of t of the deceased being aged 35, 31, , 31, 28 and 26 years respectively at the time of e of filing the claim petition. Claima aimant No.5 is the widow of the deceased. The There is nothing on record to indi indicate that the said claimants SUNENA 2025.02.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) no.1 to 4 were were financially dependent upon th n the deceased at that time. On Page 3 of 5 5 (cid:1) the contrary, ary, it is not denied that the 14 14 acres of agricultural land previously sho shown in ownership of the decease eased as per Jamabandi Ex.P6 is with the claim claimants in regard to which the they have suffered no loss of income. As As such, the claimants No.1 to to 4 were not entitled to compensation tion as they have not been ab able to prove their financial dependence ce upon the deceased; besides es being the major sons and daughters of t of the deceased. 7. It has been contended b ed by learned counsel for the appellants tha that the deceased was earning Rs g Rs.6 lakh per annum by doing agriculture wo e work and by selling and purcha rchasing animals; and that the deceased was was owner of 14 acres of land nd as evident from Jamabandi (Ex.P6). Howe owever, besides, the Jamabandi, no , no proof of income has been produced. Mo Moreover, as already noted above ove, the land has evolved upon the claimants, nts, thus resulting in no loss of in f income. It is to be noted that even no proof roof of taking land on lease was plac placed on record. Even no proof of purchasing sing and selling of animals appear pears to have been brought on record. Howev owever, keeping in mind the above bove facts, the learned Tribunal assessed incom ncome of the deceased as Rs.8100 100/- per month. I find no error e. in the same. 8. Further, as per appellant N nt No.1 – the 35-year-old son of the deceased, sed, he had stated in his evidence ence as PW1 that the deceased was 59 years ears old at the time of accident. ent. However, as per the Post- SUNENA 2025.02.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 4 of 5 5 (cid:1) Mortem Repo eport (Ex.P4), the age of the dece eceased was recorded to be 55 years. As such uch, the learned Tribunal took the a the age of the deceased to be 55 years and ther therefore, correctly added future p re prospects at the rate of 10%. Thus, monthly thly income was Rs.8,910/- (Rs.8,10 8,100/- + Rs.810/- = Rs.8,910/-). 9. Although the learned Tribu ribunal has made a deduction of 1/4th towards rds personal expenses, however as r as per law, keeping in view that claimants No. No.1 to 4 were not dependent o nt on the deceased, deduction ought to have ave been half or 1/3rd. However, as r, as this is claimants’ appeal, no change is ma made in the deduction of 1/4th th.Thus, annual income of the deceased wa was Rs.8,910/- - Rs.2,227/- = = Rs.6,683/- per month or Rs.80,196/- pe per year. 10. As deceased was 55 years ears of age, multiplier of 11 was correctly appl applied. Thus, Rs.80,196/- x 11 = R = Rs.8,82,156/-. The claimants were further her granted Rs.15,000/- for funera neral expenses; Rs.40,000/- for consortium; and Rs.15,000/- for loss of of estate. Accordingly, total compensation tion of Rs.9,52,200/- has been grant ranted. 11. From the above facts, it is it is clear that a very just and fair compensation tion has been awarded to the app appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been sho shown to this Court that would uld merit enhancement of the compensation tion granted to the appellants. . Accordingly, in view of the discussion abo above, I find no case is made ou e out which merits interference with the imp impugned Award. I find the com compensation awarded to the appellants to to be just and fair in the facts and and circumstances of the case. SUNENA 2025.02.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) No doubt Chap Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial ficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble n’ble Supreme Court, the same cann cannot be allowed to be treated Page 5 of 5 5 (cid:1) as a windfall fall or a source of profit. Hon’ble ’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Haryana & An Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur& Others rs’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and ‘Divisiona ional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mah Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held held that the amount of compen pensation should be just and reasonable, it e, it should neither be a bonanza n za nor a source of profit but at the same tim time it should not be a pittance ance. Thus, all that has to be determined in d in the facts of a given case ase is, that the compensation accorded is ‘ju is ‘just’. In my considered view, in t in the present case, the learned Tribunal has a as awarded a very ‘just’ compensa ensation, which is in accordance with the law la aw laid down by the Hon’ble Suprem preme Court and therefore, does not warrant t nt the interference of this Court ourt. In the case of KSRTC Vs. Susamma Tho Thomas 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, 76, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that m hat misplaced sympathy, generosity sity and benevolence cannot be the guiding fac g factor for determining the compen pensation. 12. Ld. Counsel for the appel ppellants has shown nothing to this Court to c to controvert or dispute the above ove facts and findings. In view of the above disc discussion, the present appeal is dis dismissed. 13. Pending application(s) if an
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. 15.02.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.02.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)