13.01.2025 Smt. Kiran Dev Devi & Others Rakesh Kumar mar & Others Smt. Kiran v. *** Vs. FAO-6026-2018
Case Details
Page 1 of 8 8 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 Date of decision: 13.01.2025 Smt. Kiran Dev Devi & Others Rakesh Kumar mar & Others Smt. Kiran Dev Devi & Others Rakesh Kumar mar & Others Vs. *** Vs. FAO-6026-2018 (O&M) ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) FAO-6033-2018 (O&M) ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Bhisham Kumar Majoka for the appellants. ajoka, Advocate NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** CM-21301-CII 6033-2018 CII-2018 IN FAO-6026-2018 & C & CM-21321-CII-2018 IN FAO- These applications under S are er Section 5 of Limitation Act are filed seeking ng condonation of delay of 1032 day days in filing the appeal(s). The only reason mentione (s) ioned in the above application(s) for seeking co g condonation of inordinate dela .on delay of 1032 days is that “...on arranging the the funds the applicants/appellant file ellants engaged a Counsel to file appeal for enh r enhancement of compensation. Th ny n. Thereafter the appellants many time to approa proach the earlier counsel for his ca ot is case, but the earlier counsel not given proper in per inquiry to her, then appellant h en nt herself inquired her case, then appellant know knows that the earlier counsel did n ith did not filed the said appeal with SUNENA 2025.01.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the reason on best known to the earlie earlier counsel. 3. That Page 2 of 8 8 (cid:1) the the applicant/appe appellant has engaged the presen the resent counsel who is filling the present appe appeal immediately and withou thout any at father delay. That consequently a tly a delay of 1032 days took place i ace in filing the present appeal...”. A bare reading of the abo or above shows that no cogent or valid grounds nds have been given. Only very vagu by vague reasons have been cited by the applicant ant for seeking condonation of inor No inordinate delay of 1032 days. No dates are men mentioned as to when the applic he plicants managed to arrange the funds or enga ngage the previous counsel or on nt on which date did the appellant find out that hat the earlier counsel had not file is filed the appeal. Even nothing is mentioned as d as to on what date the present he ent counsel was engaged by the appellants. Ac . Accordingly, no ground whatsoeve ion oever is made out for condonation of such extrao traordinary delay of 1032 days in fili n filing the appeal(s). As such, the present applic plications stand dismissed. MAIN CASE FAO-6026-201 2018 Present appeal has been fil n filed by the claimants seeking enhancement ent of compensation of Rs.6,83 6,83,900/- granted by Motor Accident Claim laims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter after referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide vide Award dated 06.01.2015 pass passed in MACP/1841/2013 filed under Section tion 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ct, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” ct”) upon the death of deceas ceased-Mahender Singh. Upon consideration tion of all the pleadings and eviden idence brought on record by the SUNENA 2025.01.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document parties, the lea e learned Tribunal concluded that th at the deceased had died due to Page 3 of 8 8 (cid:1) the injuries su s suffered by him in a motor vehic ehicular accident that took place on 31.05.2013 013 due to the rash and negligent d ent driving of the tempo bearing registration N n No.DL-1LS-4860 (hereinafter ref referred to as “the offending vehicle”) bein being driven by respondent No.1, o.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured b ed by respondent No.3. The 5 claim claimants are the: i) 45-year-old widow; ii) 23 23-year-old son; iii) 20-year-old son son; iv) 18-year-old son; and v) 70-year-old m ld mother of the deceased-Mahende ender Singh. FAO-6033-201 2018 The above FAO-6033-201 2018 arises from the second claim petition ition No.151 of 2013/2014 date ated 02.04.2014 filed by the claimants, wh , wherein a sum of Rs.5,000/- has b as been awarded in equal share on account of t of damage done to the Scooty of of the deceased in the accident in question. The above said total compe mpensation of Rs.6,83,900/- has been awarded rded to the appellants with interest rest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing iling the petitions till realisation. T n. The respondents were held jointly and sev severally liable to pay the said com compensation amounts. 2. Both the above appeals a his als are being disposed of by this common orde order as both appeals arise from co 15; common Award dated 6.1.2015; parties in both both the appeals are same; and bot me both appeals arise from the same incident/accid ccident dated 31.05.2013. For the s re the sake of convenience, facts are SUNENA 2025.01.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document being derived ived from, and parties are being ref Page 4 of 8 8 (cid:1) in g referred to as per their status in
Facts
the first FAO O No.6026-2018. 3. The only argument advanc nts anced on behalf of the appellants is that in com computing the impugned compe he mpensation, the income of the deceased has has not been correctly assessed. Ho
Legal Reasoning
winner. It is trite law that the Tribuna ibunal is permitted to do some gues guess work and also exercise its discret scretion to fix the reasonable and ju nd just compensation, for which there c ere cannot be any straitjacket formu formula based on mathematical precisio ecision. In New India Assurance Co e Company Vs. Vinish Jain and Others thers [(2018) 3 SCC 619], the Hon'b on'ble Supreme Court has held that if at if the fixation of compensation i ion is within permissible limits, the cou e courts should normally not interfer erfere with such awards”. 9. Above said view has been r en reiterated by the Kerala High Court in “Re Reliance General Insurance Com Company Limited Vs. Adila and Others”, Law Law Finder Doc ID # 1921609, para paras 16 and 17 of which read as under:-(cid:1) “16. T 6. The other area of dispute is is that the Tribunal after awardi arding compensation under the the conventional heads has awarde arded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of ss of love and affection and Rs.10 .10,000/- awarded towards pain and n and sufferings. 17. In . In New India Assurance Co., Ltd v Ltd v. Vineesh.J[2018 (3) SCC 619], t 9], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has t has held that the Appellate Court c urt can permit variation of plus or m or minus 4 to 5 percent.” 10. No case law to the contrar ntrary has been cited by learned counsel for th or the appellants. SUNENA 2025.01.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11. Accordingly, in view of the f the discussion above, I find no Page 7 of 8 8 (cid:1) case is made ade out that merits interference w ce with the impugned Award. I find the com compensation awarded to the app appellants to be just and fair in the facts and and circumstances of the case. No No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a benefici eficial legislation yet, as cautione ioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the sa e same cannot be allowed to be be treated as a windfall or a source of pro f profit. Moreover, compensation a n awarded upon the death of a near and dea dear loved one cannot be made a de a market negotiation, where every penny nny has to be calculated and drawn rawn. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Ha f Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur’, (1999 999) 1 SCC 90 and ‘Divisional Controller K. r K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, tty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the am amount of compensation should uld be just and reasonable, it should neithe either be a bonanza nor a source of e of profit but at the same time it should not not be a pittance. Thus, all that h at has to be determined in the facts of a giv a given case is, that the compensat nsation accorded is ‘just’. In my considered v ed view, in the present case, the lea learned Tribunal has awarded a very ‘just’ co t’ compensation, which is in accord ordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ on’ble Supreme Court and there erefore, does not warrant the interference nce of this Court. In case of KSRTC RTC Vs. Susamma Thomas 1994 Volume-II SC II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Co e Court has held that misplaced sympathy, ge y, generosity and benevolence cann cannot be the guiding factor for determining ing the compensation. SUNENA 2025.01.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12. In view of the above, bo Page 8 of 8 8 (cid:1) are , both the present appeals are dismissed on g on grounds of delay as well as on m n merits. 13. Pending application(s) if an
Arguments
he However, learned counsel for the appellants is u is unable to elaborate as to how th tly w the income has been incorrectly assessed by th y the learned Tribunal. 4. I have heard learned coun ve ounsel for the appellants and have perused the ca e case files in great detail. 5. I find no merit in the he the soul ground raised by the appellants. A . A perusal of the file reveals t he ls that it was the case of the appellants be before the learned Tribunal th ing l that the deceased was doing agricultural w al work and running a milk dairy ing airy from which he was earning Rs.40,000/- pe per month. However, it has been 12 een categorically noted in Para 12 of the impugn ugned Award that “...But no authent me thentic proof regarding the income of the decease eased has been brought on the recor ve record. Hence, the petitioners have failed to pro prove on record that the dece ing deceased was actually earning Rs.40,000/- per month....”. Accordingly, kee um keeping in view the Minimum Wages of an u an unskilled labourer as fixed by t he by the Haryana Government, the learned Tribun ribunal had assessed income of th er f the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. Even en nothing has been shown to this ate this Court, which would indicate that the decea eceased had income as claimed. SUNENA 2025.01.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6. Further, as per the post-m Page 5 of 8 8 (cid:1) ed mortem report of the deceased (Ex.PW3/B), a ), age of the deceased was 58 yea 9 years. Accordingly, multiplier of 9 was correctly ctly applied by the learned Tribuna in bunal. As the claimants were 5 in number, dedu deduction of 1/4th was correctly ed tly made. However, the learned Tribunal has has incorrectly granted enhanced %; nced future prospects @ 15%; whereas keep eeping in view the judgment of th in of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sarla Verma rma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport aw ort Corporation & Another” Law Finder Doc ID c ID # 188882, future prospects oug he ought to have been granted at the rate of 10%. %. It has been contended that nothi of othing has been granted by way of loss of estate, tate, however, future prospects hav of have been granted at the rate of 15% instead o ad of admissible 10%. Further, Rs.1 l oss s.1 lakh was awarded towards loss of consortium tium; and Rs.25,000/- towards fune g a funeral expenses. Thus, granting a total compens ensation ofRs.6,83,900/-. 7. I find the said compensat he nsation to be just and fair in the facts and circu circumstances of the present case. in se. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in (SC) SLP No.1 No.13931 of 2017 titled as “New Vs. ew India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & n & Others”, has held that where is ere difference in compensation is about 4 to 5 p 5 per cent only, it does not warran as, rrant interference by this Court as, such variation tion in compensation is within perm ermissible limits. 8. This above-said judgmen ment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has bee been followed by the Kerala Hig High Court in “The Managing Director, Divis Divisional Controller Versus Alikut likutty and Others” Law Finder SUNENA 2025.01.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 6 of 8 8 (cid:1) Doc Id # 1885 1885188. Relevant para 18 of the s he said judgment is reproduced below:-(cid:1) “18. It 8. It is to be borne in mind, the accid accident occurred on 23,2,2019. It is mo is more than 2 ½ years since the res e respondents 1 to 4 have been knockin ocking at the doors of the Courts urts seeking compensation on accoun count of the death of the bread-win
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. 13.01.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.01.16 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document