1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT v. FAO-5035-2017
Case Details
Page 1 of 9 9 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 National Insur nsurance Co. Ltd. Dhawan & Oth Others Vs. FAO-5035-2017(O&M) Date of decision: 28.04.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- cate Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Randeep Singh, Advoca vocate o 4. for respondents No.1 to 4 NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present appeal has been ny en filed by the Insurance Company laying challeng llenge to the Award dated 17.04.20 nt 4.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribuna bunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred l”) rred to as “the learned Tribunal”) whereby MAC MACT Case No.MACP/34 of 2016 he dated 29.07.2016 filed by the claimants/resp respondents No.1 to 4 herein, unde he under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle hicles Act (hereinafter referred to a ed to as “the Act”) has been allowed and compensa ensation of Rs.23,51,250/- has been een awarded to the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are on are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pl of pleadings and oral & documenta it entary evidence adduced before it concluded tha that the deceased Mukesh had die ed d died due to the injuries suffered SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) by him in a m a motor vehicular accident that too Page 2 of 9 9 (cid:1) to t took place on 08.06.2016 due to the rash and and negligent driving of the cante - anter bearing registration No.PB- 02AF-9855 (h 5 (hereinafter referred to as “ by s “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No t No.5. The offending vehicle was o nd as owned by respondent No.6 and insured by th y the appellant/Insurance Compan 2 pany. The 4 claimants are the 2 minor sons an s and parents of the deceased Muke ukesh. 3. Learned counsel for the a ny he appellant/Insurance Company assails the imp impugned Award on the following ing grounds: - a) that the claimants are n ed re not entitled to the awarded compensation tion as, on the date of accident dec his deceased Mukesh was driving his motorcycle be e bearing registration No.HR-05P- t is -2061 without any helmet. It is submitted tha that as per the Post-Mortem Repo ue eport, the deceased has died due to the head in d injuries suffered by him. It is cont er contended that accordingly, as per Section 128 o 28 of the Act, the deceased was ry was liable for 50% contributory negligence. Ho . However, this aspect of the matte by atter has not been considered by the learned Tr d Tribunal while passing the impugn pugned Award; b) that income of the decea he eceased has been taken on the higher side as e as per DC rates as Rs.10,500/- pe he per month; whereas as per the relevant Mini inimum Wage Notification dated he ated 01.07.2016, income of the deceased ough ought to have been taken as Rs.8,07 070/- per month; c) that claimant No.4/father lso ther of the deceased was also considered to d to be a dependent upon the dec ot deceased. However, he could not SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) have been tak taken as a dependent; and therefo Page 3 of 9 9 (cid:1) refore, a deduction of 1/3rd ought ht to have been een made towards personal expens nal penses; whereas learned Tribunal has made a de a deduction of 1/4th; d) that future prospects have of have been awarded at the rate of 50%; whereas reas keeping in view the fact that th , at the deceased was 36 years old, future prospec spects ought to have been added @ d @ 40%. 4. The above-said contenti re tentions of the appellant are vehemently co ly contested by learned counsel re ho l representing the claimants who submits that t hat the impugned Award suffers fr nt rs from no error and the present appeal deserv serves to be dismissed. 5. 6. No other argument is made
Facts
ade on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned couns d ounsel for the parties and perused the case file in ile in great detail. 7. I find no merit in the subm of ubmissions advanced on behalf of the appellant f ant for the reasons recorded herein reinbelow:- a) It has been firstly contend nt tended on behalf of the appellant that a deduct duction of 50% ought to have bee ry been made towards contributory negligence att attributed to the deceased as h cle as he was driving his motorcycle without a helm helmet and as the deceased had d es. ad died due to the head injuries. However, the the said argument of the appellan s a llant is liable to be rejected as a perusal of the f the record reveals that in the w he e written statement filed by the appellant befo before the learned Tribunal, no suc he such plea has been raised by the SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) appellant. Res Resultantly, no issue in respect of Page 4 of 9 9 (cid:1) as ct of contributory negligence was framed by the the learned Tribunal. Needless to s as to say, an issue to this effect was not framed as d as no pleading to this effect was re was made by the appellant before the learned Tr d Tribunal. It has also been admitt
Legal Reasoning
16 Act. This Court in FAO-5294-2016 titled as “New New India Assurance Company Lim ita Limited Vs. Geeta Devi @ Kavita & Others” ha has held that Minimum Wages “ to es “cannot be the sole criteria to assess income ome of the deceased, income of the v of the victim and the computation of the income on e on the basis of Minimum Wage uty ages rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner oner is also a valid criteria.” As such me such, I find no error in the income as assessed b d by the learned Tribunal. It is als as s also relevant to note that it has come in the e he evidence of claimant No.3/PW1 at W1/mother of the deceased that the deceased sed was a skilled mason Rajmistri of istri and was doing the work of taking contra ntracts for the construction of ko 2 f kothis, shops, etc. Even PW2 Kuldeep (eye (eyewitness-cum-complainant in F aid in FIR) has supported the said version. Even ven PW3 Satbir Singh who was a co nd a co-villager of the deceased and had tendered red his affidavit (Ex.PW3/A), had s a had testified that Mukesh was a skilled rajmist mistri who had also constructed th for d the house of PW3 in 2012 for which he/PW /PW3, had paid Rs.600/- per day . day as wages to the deceased. Moreover, PW PW1 has categorically stated in he he n her oral testimony as also in the affidavit (Ex.PW x.PW1/A) that the deceased was th he as the only earning member of the family and wh whole family was dependent upon en pon his income. Nothing has been shown by the the appellant to this Court to discar ard the said evidence. c) The next contention n of ce the appellant/Insurance Company is th is that claimant No.4/father of the gly f the deceased has been wrongly SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) taken as a d a dependent upon the decease Page 6 of 9 9 (cid:1) aid eased. However, even the said contention is l n is liable to be rejected as admitted im ittedly at the time of filing of claim petition in 20 2016, father of the deceased wa o.2 was 65 years of age. Issue No.2 framed by the the learned Tribunal to the effect in fect that “If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, wh e, whether the claimants Dhawan, evi an, Yash (minors), Parkasho Devi and Amar Sing Singh are entitled for the compens of pensation on account of death of deceased Muke Mukesh son of Amar Singh if so to w nd to what extent on what terms and conditions and and from whom? OPP”, has been by een decided in the affirmative by the learned Tr d Tribunal holding the claimant No. he No.4 to be a dependent upon the deceased. No Nothing to the contrary has been As been shown by the appellant. As such, the ded deduction towards personal expen de penses, has been correctly made by the learned rned Tribunal. d) The deceased was proven he ven to be 36 years of age on the basis of his A is Aadhaar Card (Ex.R1). As such, ; ch, multiplier of 15 was applied; does calculatin lating annual dependency to be ₹1 2 = ₹18,90,000/–(Rs.10,500/- x 12 = Rs.1,26,000/- - x 15 = Rs.18,90,000/-). Deductio uction of 1/4th was made towards rds personal expe xpenses, and annual income was a - as assessed to be Rs.14,17,500/- (Rs.18,90,000/ 000/- - Rs.4,72,500/-). Annual depe to ependency has been calculated to be Rs.21,26,2 ,26,250/- (Rs.14,17,500/- + Rs.7, re s.7,08,750/-) by adding future prospects @ 5 @ 50%. It has been lastly contend he tended by the appellant that the learned Tribun ibunal has wrongly granted future p he re prospects @ 50%; whereas the same ought t ht to have been @ 40%. Howev as wever, the learned Tribunal has SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) granted the s he said amount by placing relian Page 7 of 9 9 (cid:1) ch eliance upon three-Judge Bench judgment of t of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in bir in “Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh & Other thers” Law Finder Doc ID # 442228 ed 228, wherein age of the deceased therein was as 33 years and addition of 50% ha re % has been made towards future prospects. No No judgment to the contrary has sel has been cited by learned counsel for the appella pellant. 8. In any event, as per judgm me udgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (SC) S SC) SLP No.13931 of 2017 titled as td. as “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain Jain & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # ID # 977386, it has been held that at where differen erence in compensation is minor, it ce , it does not warrant interference by this Court a urt as, such variation in compensatio ts. sation is within permissible limits. 9. This above-said judgmen ent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has be 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:- “18. It It is mo knockin accoun Tribuna discret there mathe Vs. Vin the Ho accident occurred on 23,2,2019. 8. It is to be borne in mind, the accid e respondents 1 to 4 have been is more than 2 ½ years since the res urts seeking compensation on ocking at the doors of the Courts winner. It is trite law that the count of the death of the bread-win guess work and also exercise its ibunal is permitted to do some gues nd just compensation, for which scretion to fix the reasonable and ju formula based on ere cannot be any straightjac India Assurance Company In athematical precision. 619], [(2018) [( Vinish Jain 3 held that if the fixation of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and Others In New tjacket SCC SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) compe norma mpensation is within permissible rmally not interfere with such award ible limits, the courts should wards”. 10. Above said view has been een reiterated by the Kerala High Page 8 of 9 9 (cid:1) Court in “Re Reliance General Insurance Com Company Limited Vs. Adila and Others”, Law Law Finder Doc ID # 1921609, para aras 16 and 17 of which read as under:- “16. T awardi awarde Rs.10,0 17. In 619], t Court c 6. The other area of dispute is arding compensation under the arded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of .10,000/- awarded towards pain and . In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v 9], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has urt can permit variation of plus or m is that the Tribunal after the conventional heads has ss of love and affection and n and sufferings. Ltd v. Vineesh.J[2018 (3) SCC t has held that the Appellate or minus 4 to 5 percent.” 11. Learned Tribunal further rds er awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral rites; ; and Rs.1 lakh each to the minor nd inor sons towards loss of love and affection; and and has accordingly directed tha of that the total compensation of Rs.23,51,250/ 50/- be disbursed in the following m ng manner: - comes compensation of total amount of “14. The Rs.23,51,250/- (21,26,250 +25,000 that the amount of Rs. 1.00 la petitioners no.1 and 2 minors on towards the minor childrens. Rs.21,51,250/- shall be disbursed the ratio i.e. 70% of the said am Yash Pal and Dhawan minors an said amount shall be distributed a 4 in equal shares, who are pare Kumar along with interest @ 7.5% to to 5,000/-+2,00,000). It is made clear ear the 0 lac each shall be paid to the ion s on account of love and affection ns. The remaining amount of of in ursed between the petitioners in d amount to petitioners no.1 & 2 2 the rs and the remaining 30% of the & ted among the petitioners no. 3 & sh parents of the deceased Mukesh 7.5% per annum.” SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 12. From the above facts, it is it is clear that a very just and fair Page 9 of 9 9 (cid:1) compensation tion has been awarded to the claim claimants. Accordingly, I find no case is made ade out which merits interference w ce with the impugned Award. I find the comp ompensation awarded to the claima aimants to be just and fair in the facts and circu circumstances of the case. Hon’ble ’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Haryana & An Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others hers’ 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 is, that that the compensation accorded is ‘just’. In my my considered view, in the presen esent case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a ed a very ‘just’ compensation, whi which is in accordance with the law laid down own by the Hon’ble Supreme Cou Court and therefore, does not warrant the in e interference of this Court. 13. 14. 28.04.2025 Sunena
Arguments
he mitted by learned counsel for the appellant that that even no evidence was led b ny d by the appellant to prove any contributory n ry negligence on part of the deceas of ceased. As such, this argument of the appellant i ant is rejected. b) It has next been contende nt ended on behalf of the appellant that income me of the deceased has been t as n taken on the higher side as Rs.10,500/- pe per month on the basis of DC ra me C rates; whereas the said income ought to have have been assessed on the basis ge asis of relevant Minimum Wage Notification. Record reveals that it was the p nts he pleaded case of the claimants that the dece eceased was working as a mason er son and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Admit dmittedly no proof of income was in as produced by the claimants in support of the f the said contention. It was in this ed this background that the learned Tribunal asses ssessed notional income of the er he deceased as Rs.10,500/- per month as per t per the Collector rate, Karnal. No do by o doubt, the income prescribed by the Minimum um Wages Act as revised from time sic time to time can provide the basic criteria or guid guidelines to assess the income of t he of the deceased or injured as the case may be, h be, however, the facts and circumst be mstances of each case have to be evaluated indi individually. There cannot be and ula nd there is no straitjacket formula mandating tha g that income has to be assessed on es d only as per the Minimum Wages SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Act. The Act b Act being a beneficial legislation, a Page 5 of 9 9 (cid:1) of n, a narrow construction thereof would be anat anathema to the purpose of the Act
Decision
In view of the above, prese resent appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)