O&M) Phoola Devi and another v. AND Vs
Case Details
FAO Nos. 5374-2016 (O&M) and 6937-2017 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 231 Date of decision: 06.11.2025 1. FAO-5374-2016 (O&M) Na,onal Insurance Company Limited Phoola Devi and others 2. FAO-6937-2017 (O&M) Phoola Devi and another Vs. AND Vs. ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) ...Appellant(s) M/s. Vishwanhind Logis,cs Ltd. and others ....Respondent(s) CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Assem Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-5374-2016. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. FAO-5374-2016: The present appeal has been -led by the Insurance Company seeking modi-ca3on of the Award dated 20.05.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereina5er referred to as “the Tribunal”); whereby Claim Pe33on No. 72 dated 23.11.2015 -led by the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 herein, under Sec3on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereina5er referred to as “the Act”), has been allowed; and the claimants have been awarded compensa3on of Rs.20,17,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. The 2 claimants are the mother and minor son of the deceased Subhash Chand, who was 44 DIVYANSHI 2025.11.10 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO Nos. 5374-2016 (O&M) and 6937-2017 (O&M) 2 years old at the 3me of accident. Performa respondent No.4/widow of the deceased Subhash Chand is found to have le5 the matrimonial home almost 10 years prior to the accident; and was therefore, held not en3tled to compensa3on. FAO-6937-2017 The present appeal has been -led by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa3on of Rs.20,17,000/- granted by the learned MACT, Karnal vide Award dated 20.05.2016 passed in MACP No. 554 dated 23.11.2015 -led under Sec3on 166 of the Act. The 2 claimants are the mother and minor son of the deceased Subhash Chand, who was 44 years old at the 3me of accident. CM-22492-CII-2017 in FAO-6937-2017: Prayer in this applica3on -led by the applicants/claimants under Sec3on 5 of the Limita3on Act read with Sec3on 151 of CPC is for condona3on of delay of 237 days in -ling the appeal. 2. For the reasons cited in the applica3on, which is duly supported by an aAdavit of the applicant/appellant No.1, the same is allowed; and the delay of 237 days in -ling the appeal is condoned. FAO Nos.5374-2016 & 6937-2017 Both the above said appeals are being disposed of by this common order as both arise out of the same impugned Award dated 20.05.2016; both appeals are between same par3es; and in respect of the same accident dated 10.11.2013; and the facts and issues involved in both the cases are iden3cal. DIVYANSHI 2025.11.10 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO Nos. 5374-2016 (O&M) and 6937-2017 (O&M) 3 2. For the sake of facility, facts are being drawn from FAO-5374- 2016 -led by the Insurance Company. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal upon appraisal of the pleadings, and the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the par3es, concluded that deceased-Subhash Chand had died due to the injuries suDered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 10.11.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of a Tralla bearing registra3on No. HR-38-Q-5177 (hereina5er referred to as ‘the oDending vehicle’), which was owned by respondent No.1; and insured by respondent No.2/appellant herein. The above said compensa3on was granted by the learned Tribunal alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of ins3tu3on of the claim pe33on 3ll realiza3on. The Insurance Company was held liable to pay the above said compensa3on. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the impugned Award deserves to be modi-ed as learned Tribunal has take income of the deceased on higher side as Rs.12,000/-p.m. It is submiJed that it was pleaded by the claimants before the Tribunal that the deceased was a Driver by profession and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. However, no proof of either the said profession, or income was produced by the claimants. Learned counsel contends that in such circumstances, income of the deceased could, at best, have been taken as that of a skilled worker as Rs.5,861/- p.m. as per Minimum Wage No3-ca3on dated 13.08.2013 w.e.f. 01.07.2013 issued by State of Haryana, a copy of which is handed over in Court today. However, the learned Tribunal, in a totally DIVYANSHI 2025.11.10 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO Nos. 5374-2016 (O&M) and 6937-2017 (O&M) 4 incorrect manner, has merely stated that “It is a ma(cid:8)er of common experience that a person holding licence to drive heavy vehicle can easily earn Rs.12,000/- per month.” Learned counsel contends that mere ‘common experience’ can cons3tute no ground for determining income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- p.m. 5. It is further submiJed that learned Tribunal has made addi3on of 30% towards future prospects, whereas the same ought to have been 25%. Further, an exorbitant amount of Rs.1 lac each has been awarded to both the claimants for loss of love and aDec3on; whereas the same ought to have been Rs.48,000/- p.m. each. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned Award be modi-ed in the above manner. 6. No other argument is made on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellant. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case -le in great detail. 7. In the cross-appeal No. 6937 of 2017 -led by the claimants, none has put in appearance since the incep3on of the appeal from the year 2017. Even in the present appeal -led by the Insurance Company, none has appeared on behalf of the claimants despite service. As such, maJer is being heard and decided in the absence of learned counsel for the claimants. 8. Perusal of the appeal -led by the claimants shows that enhancement of compensa3on is sought on the ground that “Learned MACT has not granted any compensa%on for loss of estate; loss of expectancy of life of the deceased....; interest of 12% is payable on the enhanced compensa%on....” Learned MACT has not granted any DIVYANSHI 2025.11.10 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO Nos. 5374-2016 (O&M) and 6937-2017 (O&M) 5 compensa%on for li%ga%on expenses; whereas appellants were en%tled for Rs.25,000/- towards cost of li%ga%on.......”. 9. Although, it has been very persuasively argued on behalf of the Insurance Company that income of the deceased has been taken on the higher side however, I -nd no merit in the said argument. Date of accident is 10.11.2013. As such, income/salary of a heavy vehicle Driver in the year 2013 would be about Rs.12,000/- p.m. In support of their claim, claimants had produced a copy of Driving Licence of the deceased as Mark-A, as per which, deceased was authorized to drive PSVBUS. It is even proved on record that deceased had died while driving Truck bearing registra3on No. HP-12-D-2354. As such, I -nd no error in the income as assessed by the Tribunal. 10. Further, the age of the deceased was proved to be about 44 years old from his Driving Licence Mark-A in which his date of birth is men3oned as 25.06.1969. As such, on the date of accident i.e. 10.11.2013, deceased was about 44 years of age. Therefore, as per judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corpora,on” (2009) AIR (SC) 3104 Law Finder Doc ID # 188882, future prospects of 25% were to be added; and not @ 30% as incorrectly added by the Tribunal. Mul3plier of 14 has been correctly applied. As there were two claimants/dependents, deduc3on of 1/3rd has also been correctly made. Further, learned Tribunal has granted Rs.1 lac each to both the claimants towards loss of love and aDec3on. The said amount is on the higher side as, as per the structured formula laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in DIVYANSHI 2025.11.10 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO Nos. 5374-2016 (O&M) and 6937-2017 (O&M) 6 “Na(cid:4)onal Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others”, Special Leave Pe(cid:4)(cid:4)on (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, Rs.40,000/- + 10% increase every three years, has to be granted. I also -nd merit in the pleading of the claimants to the eDect that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensa3on under loss of estate as well. 11. In view of the above, FAO-5374-2016 -led by the Insurance Company is partly allowed; and compensa3on awarded to the claimants is modi-ed as follows:- Sr.No. Details Before the Tribunal Revised compensa3on 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 7. 8. 9. Income Monthly: Rs.12,000/- Monthly: Rs.12,000/- Future prospects @ 30% i.e. Rs.16,000/- (12,000+4,000) Deduc3on of 1/3rd Rs.10,667 x 12 Mul3plier of 14 =Rs.1,28,004 1,28,004 x 14 = Rs.17,92,056/- @ 25% i.e. Rs.15,000/- (12,000+3,000) Rs.10,000 x 12 = Rs.1,20,000/- Rs.1,20,000 x 14 = Rs.16,80,000/- Loss of love and aDec3on Rs.1 lac each to claimants No.1 and 2 Rs.48,000/- each to claimants No. 1 and 2 Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Loss of Estate Nil Rs.20,17,056/- i.e. Rs.20,17,000/- Total Deducted compensa3on Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,12,000/- Rs.20,17,000-Rs.18,12,000 = Rs.2,05,000/- Interest 9% per annum 9% per annum
Decision
FAO-6937-2017 -led by the claimants stands disposed of with the above said modi-ca3on. DIVYANSHI 2025.11.10 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO Nos. 5374-2016 (O&M) and 6937-2017 (O&M) 7 12. Pending applica3on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 06.11.2025 Divyanshi (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2025.11.10 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document