21.01.2025 Smt. Neeraj D aj Devi & Others Suresh Kumar mar & Others v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
Page 1 of 5 5 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 246 FAO-9-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.01.2025 Smt. Neeraj D aj Devi & Others Suresh Kumar mar & Others Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- vocate for Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advoc ate Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the appellants. ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) ate Ms. Suman Jain, Advocate ocate Mr. Shubham Jain, Advocat for respondent No.3. *** NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. Present appeal has been fi en filed by the claimants seeking enhancement ent of compensation of Rs.29,71,2 71,200/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter fter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide vide Award dated 12.04.2017 pas passed in claim petition MACP Case No.75 of 5 of 2016 filed by the claimants/app appellants herein under Section 166/140 of th f the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (he (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The afo aforesaid compensation has been een awarded along with interest @ 9% per an r annum from the date of filing t ng the claim petition till actual deposit of th f the same. All the three respond ondents were held jointly and severally liable liab to pay the amount o t of compensation. The 3 claimants/app /appellants are the widow and pare parents of the deceased-Sanjeev Kumar. SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 2.
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of the case are are that the learned Tribunal on Page 2 of 5 5 (cid:1) the basis of pl of pleadings and evidence adduced ced before it concluded that the deceased-Sanj Sanjeev Kumar had died due to the the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicul icular accident that took place on on 04.03.2016 due to the rash and negligent gent driving of the truck bearing r ing registration No.HP-12B-9657 (hereinafter re er referred to as “the offending ve g vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending ding vehicle was owned by respo spondent No.2 and insured by respondent No t No.3. 3.1 Learned counsel for the a he appellants submits that the consortium gr granted to the appellants deserve erves to be enhanced. 3.2 It is further submitted that that the amounts granted under various heads ads is on the lower side and deserve serves to be enhanced. 4. Per contra, learned cou counsel for the respondent No.3/Insuranc rance Company opposes the pray prayer made on behalf of the appellants and and submits that compensation ha n has been granted in a just and fair manner an er and therefore, prays for dismissal issal of the present appeal. 5. 6. No other argument is raise aised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned co counsel for the parties and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 7. Perusal of record of the cas e case shows that on the basis of oral and docu documentary evidence brought on t on record by the parties, the learned Tribun ibunal returned the finding that th t the deceased had died due to the injuries su es suffered by him in the motor v or vehicular accident that took SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) place on 04.03 4.03.2016 due to the rash and negli egligent driving of the offending vehicle by resp respondent No.1 and the same was was owned by respondent No.2 Page 3 of 5 5 (cid:1) and insured b d by respondent No.3. The respon pondents were accordingly held liable to pay th ay the awarded compensation, joint jointly and severally. 8.1. It was the case of the app appellants/claimants before the learned Tribun ibunal that the deceased was work orking as Service Engineer with Pal Engineers, ers, SCO 133, Block-A, MI Plaza, Jh a, Jharmari, Baddi, District Solan and getting Rs g Rs.14,250/- per month. On the b he basis of evidence led by the claimants i.e. i.e. appointment letter (Ex.P10), c 0), copy of attendance register (Ex.P11), salar salary slip (Ex.P6), certificate issue ssued by Pal Engineers (Ex.P7), Form-16 (Ex.P Ex.P8), the learned Tribunal took th k the income of the deceased to be Rs.13,200/ 00/- per month. 8.2 The age of the deceased ased was determined to be 25 years on the b he basis of Post-Mortem Report (E (Ex.P13); and future prospects of 50% were a ere added to the income of the dec deceased; and monthly income of the decease eased was calculated as Rs.19,800/ 800/- (Rs.13,200/- + Rs.6,600/-). It may be po pointed out that as per the law law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour ourt, future prospects could have b ve been added @ 40%, however, have been add 50%. added at the excessive rate of 50%. 8.3 Deduction of 1/3rd was cor s correctly made as there were 3 dependents. T ts. Thus, monthly dependency in fa in favour of claimants is arrived at Rs.13,200/ 00/- (Rs.19,800/- - Rs.6,600/-). Ann Annual dependency would thus be Rs.1,58,400 ,400/- (Rs.13,200/- x 12). SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 8.4 Learned Tribunal correctly ctly applied the multiplier of 18. Page 4 of 5 5 (cid:1) Thus, 28,51,20 1,200/- (Rs.1,58,400/- x 18). 8.5 Appellant No.1/widow w was also granted Rs.1 lakh towards loss o ss of consortium. 8.6 Rs.20,000/- was also so granted towards funeral expenses. 8.7 9. Thus, total compensation c ion comes to Rs.29,71,200/-. It has been argued on be n behalf of the appellants that consortium gr granted to the appellants is on th n the lower side as each of the claimants was was entitled to consortium of Rs. Rs.1 lakh each. I find the said argument to to be misplaced. As per recent ent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Cour
Legal Reasoning
Court in “Shri Ram General Insuran urance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh Rawat & Othe thers” Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412 412/2023 and “Mehmooda Bee & Others Vs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.” (@ (@ SLP (C) No.16767 of 2022) and “Bebi Gir i Giri Vs. National Insurance Co. Lt o. Ltd.” Civil Appeal No.6551 of 2022, a total s tal sum of Rs.77,000/- is to be gran granted under the conventional heads. 10. From the above facts, it is it is clear that a very just and fair compensation tion has been awarded to the app appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been sho shown to this Court that would uld merit enhancement of the compensation tion granted to the appellant. t. Accordingly, in view of the discussion abo above, I find no case is made ou e out which merits interference with the imp impugned Award. I find the com compensation awarded to the SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 5 of 5 5 (cid:1) appellant to b to be just and fair in the facts and c nd circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter pter-12 of the Act is a beneficial leg l legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Su le Supreme Court, the same cannot nnot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or l or a source of profit. Hon’ble S le Supreme Court in ‘State of Haryana Vs. Vs. Jasbir Kaur’ Law Finder Doc oc ID # 64043 and ‘Divisional Controller K. K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, ty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amou mount of compensation should be j be just and reasonable, it should neither be a b a bonanza nor a source of profit bu fit but at the same time it should not be a pitta pittance. Thus, all that has to be d be determined in the facts of a given case is, is, that the compensation accorde orded is ‘just’. In my considered view, in the p he present case, the learned Tribun ibunal has awarded a very ‘just’ compensation tion, which is in accordance with with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supre upreme Court and therefore, does n es not warrant the interference of this Court. urt. In the case of KSRTC Vs. Susam samma Thomas 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the the Hon’ble Supreme Court has he s held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and and benevolence cannot be the gu e guiding factor for determining the compensa nsation. 11. 12.
Decision
In view of the above, prese resent appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. 21.01.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)