08.05.2025 Ishwar Singh and others v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
FAO-8411-2017 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 Bimla and another FAO-8411-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.05.2025 Ishwar Singh and others Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) Present:- Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate for the appellants.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. R.D.Sharma, Advocate for the respondent-insurance company. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-27457-CII-2017 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the accompanying appeal. Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an afÏdavit of the applicant/appellant No.1, the same is allowed and delay of 7 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned. FAO-8411-2017 (O&M) The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.8,35,000/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as “the DIVYANSHI 2025.05.09 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-8411-2017 (O&M) -2 - learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 10.05.2017 passed in MACP Case No. 195 dated 04.04.2015 filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for grant of compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. The 2 claimants are the widow and 30 years old son of the deceased Raja Ram. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased-Raja Ram had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 17.03.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of Mahindra and Mahindra Bolero Pick-up bearing registration No.HR-99TK-9205 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The aforesaid compensation was awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till actual realisation. The respondents No.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation on the ground that nothing has been granted by way of future prospects. It is submitted that the deceased was an agriculturist and dairy farmer and keeping good health and robust physique. As such, future prospects ought to have been added. It is also submitted that the deceased was serving as Secretary in P.H.C.V.H.G. Association and earning Rs.40,000/- p.m. However, even this income of the deceased has not been considered while passing the impugned Award. Learned Tribunal has DIVYANSHI 2025.05.09 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-8411-2017 (O&M) -3 - incorrectly applied multiplier of 11; whereas the same should have been 12. No deduction should have been made as the deceased used to spend all his income on the welfare of family and respondent No.4. The appellants have no source of income. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed; and the impugned Award be modified. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company opposes prayer made on behalf of the appellants and submits that impugned Award suffers from no infirmity. In fact, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in excess as to what is admissible to them as per law. It is pointed out that the claimant No.2/son of the deceased was 30 years old at the time of filing of claim petition and was therefore, not entitled to compensation. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 5. 6. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail. 7. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the insurance company. It was the pleaded case of the appellants that the deceased was 52 years old at the time of accident. However, as per the record, the age of the deceased was proved to be 55 years on the basis of his postmortem report Ex.P3. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellants that the deceased was an agriculturist, dairy farmer and was earning Rs.40,000/- p.m. while serving as Secretary of P.H.C.V.H.G. Association. However admittedly, except for the bald statement made by DIVYANSHI 2025.05.09 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-8411-2017 (O&M) -4 - claimant No.1/PW1 in this regard, no oral and documentary evidence whatsoever has been produced by the appellants to substantiate the said assertion. As such, learned Tribunal has correctly, justly and fairly assessed income of the deceased as ₹7500/– per month; and therefore, the annual income of the deceased as Rs.93,000/- (Rs.7,500/- p.m. x 12). 8. Learned Tribunal has taken the 2 claimants/widow and 30- year-old son; as also respondent No.4/married daughter of the deceased, to be the dependants of the deceased and has made a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses. However, keeping in mind the fact that claimant No.2/son and respondent No.4 are adults, a deduction of 50% ought to have been made in accordance with law. Nonetheless, annual income of the deceased was calculated as Rs.60,000/- (Rs.90,000 - Rs.30,000). 9. As noticed above, deceased was 55 years old. Therefore, learned Tribunal has correctly applied multiplier of 11, which is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation” (2009) AIR (SC) 3104 Law Finder Doc ID # 188882. Total loss of dependency was therefore, calculated to be Rs.6,60,000/- (Rs.60,000 x 11). 10. Under the conventional heads, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- for funeral and transportation expenses; Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss of love and affection to claimant No.2 and respondent No.4; and Rs.1 lac for loss of consortium to the claimant No.1; thereby awarding total compensation of Rs. 8,35,000/- (₹6,60,000 + DIVYANSHI 2025.05.09 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-8411-2017 (O&M) -5 - ₹1,75,000). Whereas, as per the recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh Rawat & Others” Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023 and “Mehmooda Bee & Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.” (@ SLP (C) No.16767 of 2022) and “Bebi Giri Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.” Civil Appeal No.6551 of 2022, it has been held that total sum of Rs.77,000/- only can be granted under the conventional heads. 11. From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellants. Accordingly, I find no case is made out that merits interference with the impugned Award. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a 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 Supreme Court in ‘State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. In case of KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. 12. DIVYANSHI 2025.05.09 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Decision
In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. FAO-8411-2017 (O&M) -6 - 13. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 08.05.2025 Divyanshi (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2025.05.09 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document