Manjit Kaur & Anr. v. Jagtar Singh & Ors.

CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Jyoti Kaur, Advocate for Present: Ms. Jyoti Kaur, Advocate for Mr. R.S.Waraich (Rana), Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.S.Waraich (Rana), Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.S.Waraich (Rana), Advocate for the appellants. -.- NIDHI GUPTA, J. NIDHI GUPTA, J. 2023 CM-9244-CII-2023 application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act Prayer in this is for condonation of delay of 06 days in filing the accompanying appeal. is for condonation of delay of 06 days in filing the accompanying appeal. is for condonation of delay of 06 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

3. Heard. Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an e same is allowed and delay of 06 days in affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 06 days in e same is allowed and delay of 06 days in affidavit of the applicant/appellant, th filing the accompanying appeal is condoned. filing the accompanying appeal is condoned. 2023 CM-9245-CII-2023 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filing the accompanying appeal. is for condonation of delay of 162 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal. is for condonation of delay of 162 days in re 2023 (O&M) FAO-2565-2023 (O&M) -2-

3. Heard. Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 162 days in affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 162 days in affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 162 days in affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 162 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned. re-filing the accompanying appeal is condoned. 2023 FAO-2565-2023

1. filed by the claimants seeking enhancement Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement filed by the claimants seeking enhancement Present awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims of compensation of Rs.13,34,720/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims of compensation of Rs.13,34,720/ Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide on No.12 dated 24.01.2019 Award dated 19.05.2022 passed in MACT Claim Petition No.12 dated 24.01.2019 Award dated 19.05.2022 passed in MACT Claim Petiti Award dated 19.05.2022 passed in MACT Claim Petiti filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The two claimants are the 43-year-old mother and 48 Act”). The two claimants are the 43 old father of the old mother and 48-year-old father of the me of accident. deceased Dharampreet Singh, who was about 17 years old at the time of accident. deceased Dharampreet Singh, who was about 17 years old at the ti deceased Dharampreet Singh, who was about 17 years old at the ti

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal on the basis of pleadings Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal on the basis of pleadings Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal on the basis of pleadings Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that deceased Dharampreet and evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that deceased Dharampreet and evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that deceased Dharampreet and evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that deceased Dharampreet Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident ok place on 16.12.2018 at 6:00 PM due to rash and negligence driving of a that took place on 16.12.2018 at 6:00 PM due to rash and negligence driving of a ok place on 16.12.2018 at 6:00 PM due to rash and negligence driving of a ok place on 16.12.2018 at 6:00 PM due to rash and negligence driving of a Splendour Motor Cycle bearing Chassis No. MBLHAROA1JHL68524, Engine Splendour Motor Cycle bearing Chassis No. MBLHAROA1JHL68524, Engine Splendour Motor Cycle bearing Chassis No. MBLHAROA1JHL68524, Engine Splendour Motor Cycle bearing Chassis No. MBLHAROA1JHL68524, Engine No. HA10AGJHLG8067 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven and No. HA10AGJHLG8067 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven and No. HA10AGJHLG8067 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven and No. HA10AGJHLG8067 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven and responding No.2. The above owned by respondent No.1 and insured by responding No.2. The above owned by respondent No.1 and insured by owned by respondent No.1 and insured by compensation has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. compensation has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. compensation has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. compensation has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The liability to pay said compensation as being fixed upon the respondent No.1 on The liability to pay said compensation as being fixed upon the respondent No.1 on The liability to pay said compensation as being fixed upon the respondent No.1 on The liability to pay said compensation as being fixed upon the respondent No.1 on hicle insured only account of the fact that respondent No.1 had got the offending vehicle insured only account of the fact that respondent No.1 had got the offending ve account of the fact that respondent No.1 had got the offending ve after the accident. after the accident. 2023 (O&M) FAO-2565-2023 (O&M) -3-

3. Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only submitting that income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side as only rking as a waiter per month. It is submitted that the deceased had been working as a waiter per month. It is submitted that the deceased had been wo ₹8100/- per month. It is submitted that the deceased had been wo per month. It is further submitted that deduction and had been earning ₹12,000/- per month. It is further submitted that deduction per month. It is further submitted that deduction and had been earning made on account of personal expenses is also on the higher side. Incorrect made on account of personal expenses is also on the higher side. Incorrect made on account of personal expenses is also on the higher side. Incorrect made on account of personal expenses is also on the higher side. Incorrect multiplier has been applied. Less compensation has been awarded under the multiplier has been applied. Less compensation has been awarded under the multiplier has been applied. Less compensation has been awarded under the multiplier has been applied. Less compensation has been awarded under the onal heads. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and conventional heads. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and onal heads. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and onal heads. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation payable to the appellants be enhanced. the compensation payable to the appellants be enhanced. the compensation payable to the appellants be enhanced.

5. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellants. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellants. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellants. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellants. the case file in detail. I find I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find I have heard learned counsel and perused I have heard learned counsel and perused no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

6. A perusal of the record reveals that it was the pleaded case of the A perusal of the record reveals that it was the pleaded case of the A perusal of the record reveals that it was the pleaded case of the A perusal of the record reveals that it was the pleaded case of the appellants that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a waiter and appellants that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a waiter and appellants that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a waiter and appellants that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a waiter and earning ₹12,000/ per month. However, no evidence whatsoever has been led by ₹12,000/- per month. However, no evidence whatsoever has been led by per month. However, no evidence whatsoever has been led by No documentary evidence has been adduced by the the appellants in this behalf. No documentary evidence has been adduced by the No documentary evidence has been adduced by the the appellants in this behalf. appellants to show the alleged income of the deceased. Although the claimants had appellants to show the alleged income of the deceased. Although the claimants had appellants to show the alleged income of the deceased. Although the claimants had appellants to show the alleged income of the deceased. Although the claimants had examined PW3 Varinder Singh, who had deposed that he was working as examined PW3 Varinder Singh, who had deposed that he was working as examined PW3 Varinder Singh, who had deposed that he was working as examined PW3 Varinder Singh, who had deposed that he was working as waiters for work in the contractor with various Tent Houses and that he provided waiters for work in the contractor with various Tent Houses and that he provided contractor with various Tent Houses and that he provided 3 was rejected by the learned said Tent Houses, however, the evidence of PW-3 was rejected by the learned said Tent Houses, however, the evidence of PW said Tent Houses, however, the evidence of PW Tribunal as no documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants or PW3 to Tribunal as no documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants or PW3 to Tribunal as no documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants or PW3 to Tribunal as no documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants or PW3 to substantiate their oral and bald statements. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had substantiate their oral and bald statements. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal ha substantiate their oral and bald statements. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal ha substantiate their oral and bald statements. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal ha ₹8077.71 (rounded off assessed income of the deceased as an unskilled worker as ₹8077.71 (rounded off assessed income of the deceased as an unskilled worker as assessed income of the deceased as an unskilled worker as ₹8100) per month on the basis of the relevant Minimum Wage Notification. I to ₹8100) per month on the basis of the relevant Minimum Wage Notification. I ₹8100) per month on the basis of the relevant Minimum Wage Notification. I ₹8100) per month on the basis of the relevant Minimum Wage Notification. I find no error in the same. find no error in the same. 2023 (O&M) FAO-2565-2023 (O&M) -4-

7. Further, age of deceased was determined to be 17 years and 6 months Further, age of deceased was determined to be 17 years and 6 mont Further, age of deceased was determined to be 17 years and 6 mont Further, age of deceased was determined to be 17 years and 6 mont at the time of accident on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate Ex.P8, wherein at the time of accident on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate Ex.P8, wherein at the time of accident on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate Ex.P8, wherein at the time of accident on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate Ex.P8, wherein date of birth of the deceased was reflected to be 22.05.2001. Accordingly, Tribunal date of birth of the deceased was reflected to be 22.05.2001. Accordingly, Tribunal date of birth of the deceased was reflected to be 22.05.2001. Accordingly, Tribunal date of birth of the deceased was reflected to be 22.05.2001. Accordingly, Tribunal had correctly made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and correctly had correctly made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and correctly had correctly made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and correctly had correctly made an addition of 40% towards future prospects; and correctly d multiplier of 18. applied multiplier of 18.

8. As deceased was a Bachelor, Tribunal had correctly made a deduction As deceased was a Bachelor, Tribunal had correctly made a deduction As deceased was a Bachelor, Tribunal had correctly made a deduction As deceased was a Bachelor, Tribunal had correctly made a deduction of 50% towards personal expenses. Further under the conventional heads, Tribunal of 50% towards personal expenses. Further under the conventional heads, Tribunal of 50% towards personal expenses. Further under the conventional heads, Tribunal of 50% towards personal expenses. Further under the conventional heads, Tribunal had awarded an amount of ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate; had awarded an amount of towards towards loss of estate; ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses; and (each) to both the claimants towards loss of al expenses; and ₹40,000/-(each) to both the claimants towards loss of (each) to both the claimants towards loss of consortium; thereby awarding total compensation of ₹13,34,720, as follows: - consortium; thereby awarding total compensation of consortium; thereby awarding total compensation of

3. Heads Sr. No. Heads Income Income 1. 40% of (i) above to be added as 40% of (i) above to be added as 2. future future prospects ½ of (ii) deducted as personal ½ of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of deceased expenses of deceased Compensation after multiplier of Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied 18 is applied Loss of Consortium Loss of Consortium Loss of estate Loss of estate Loss of expenses Loss of expenses Total Total

5. 6. 7. 8.

4. Calculation (in Rs.) Calculation (in Rs.) Rs.8100/- Rs.8100/ Rs.8,100+3,240 = Rs.11,340/- per Rs.8,100+3,240 = Rs.11,340/ Rs.11,340-5,670/- = Rs.5670/- Rs.11,340 - Rs.5,670x12x18 = Rs.12,24,720/- Rs.5,670x12x18 = Rs. Rs.40,000/- x 2 = 80,000/- Rs.40,000/ Rs.15,000/ Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/ Rs.15,000/- Rs.13,34,720/- Rs.13,34,720/

9. From the above facts, it is clear that a just and fair compensation in From the above facts, it is clear that a just and fair compensation in From the above facts, it is clear that a just and fair compensation in From the above facts, it is clear that a just and fair compensation in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been awarded accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been awarded accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been awarded accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been awarded to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation. No doubt Chapter merit enhancement of the compe 12 of the Act is a nsation. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble 2023 (O&M) FAO-2565-2023 (O&M) -5- Supreme Court in “State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur” La Supreme Court in w Finder Doc ID # State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur” Law Finder Doc ID # “Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another” 64043 and “Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another” “Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another” “Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another”