Surjit Kaur & Ors. v. Gajjan Singh & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 29 Mar 2012
- Bench
- K C PURI
Outcome
Disposed of
The appeal stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 166
Judgment
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Vishwajit Bedi, Advocate for the appellants Sh. N.L. Sammi, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Savita Tanwar, Advocate for Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2- Insurance company. ... K.C. Puri, J. Challenge in this appeal is the award dated 17.4.2009 passed by Sh. Harpal Singh, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, vide which the claim petition preferred by the claimants under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of death of Kesar Singh, was partly accepted and an amount of `2,26,000/- was granted. FAO No. 6179 of 2010 -2- Since the present appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation, and as such other facts need not be narrated. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased was aged 55 years as per finding of the Tribunal and the multiplier applicable at this age, in view of authority reported as Smt.
Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, should be 11. It is further contended that amount of income as `3,000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal, is on lower side and the same should have been assessed as `3,300/- per month. It is further contended that the amount in respect of loss of consortium, loss of estate etc. is also on lower side. Learned counsel for the Insurance company has submitted that authority in Smt. Sarla Verma' case (Supra), would be applicable if the claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in claim petition filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 only Schedule will apply. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the file of the case. So far as, finding of Tribunal regarding income of the deceased as `3,000/- per month is concerned, that does not call for any interference.
Operative part
There is no proof regarding income of the deceased as `3,300/- per month. So, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as `3,000/- per month. The deceased, as per finding of the Tribunal was aged 55 years. Since the petition is under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the amount has to be FAO No. 6179 of 2010 -3- calculated strictly in accordance with Second Schedule laid down in respect of Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for calculating the compensation. According to the said Schedule, a person who falls within the age of 50 to 55 years and have income of `36,000/- per annum i.e. `3,000/- per month, should be allowed `3,60,000/-. Out of the said amount 1/3rd amount has to be deducted in respect of personal expenses of the deceased, as per said schedule. In this manner, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,40,000/-. As per the said schedule, the claimants are also entitled to claim `2,000/- as funeral expenses, `5,000/- for loss of consortium and `2,500/- for loss of estate. So, the claimants are held entitled to claim `2,49,500/-. The said amount shall carry same rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The liability to pay the said amount shall also be the same as ordered by the Tribunal. The appeal stands disposed of.
29.3.2012 ( K.C. Puri ) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 166.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 29 Mar 2012. The bench was K C PURI.
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.