Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1685
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Karamjit Singh - Appellant
Versus
Satguru Singh and others - Respondents
FAO No. 1042 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-10-2017
For the Appellants : Mr. Aminder Singh
For the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Mr. Ravinder Arora
Legal representatives can claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 without any distinction of being major or minor. The court applied the multiplier method for calculating loss of dependency.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation for Motor Vehicular Accident - Section 166 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The court discussed the entitlement of legal heirs to claim compensation under Section 166 without distinction of being major or minor. It applied the multiplier method for calculating loss of dependency, referencing the decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
Fact of the Case:
Five persons died in a motor vehicular accident, and a claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- as compensation, which was appealed for enhancement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the legal representatives can claim compensation under Section 166 without any distinction of being major or minor. It applied the multiplier method for calculating loss of dependency and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,82,720/-.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of legal heirs to claim compensation, the application of the multiplier method for calculating loss of dependency, and the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the application of the multiplier method for calculating loss of dependency.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced to Rs. 5,82,720/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 2.9.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short 'the Tribunal').
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are as under:
On 20.1.2013 five persons namely Harpal Kaur, Gurjit Singh, Hardeep Kaur, Jagtar Singh and Gurwinder Kaur, who were travelling in a Car bearing registration No. PB-11-Z-1105, met with a Motor vehicular accident. The said car was struck by a bus bearing registration No. PB-13-Z-9375 (for short 'the offending vehicle'). As a result of the accident, all the five persons died on the spot. FIR No. 13 dated 20.1.2013 was registered at Police Station Dirba.
3. The claim petition under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') was filed by the LRs of deceased-Gurjit Singh.
4. The Tribunal after considering witnesses and evidence, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
5. The present appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation awarded.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
7. The facts are not in dispute by the parties.
8. There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has not awarded anything for loss of dependency. An amount of Rs.1,35,000/- awarded included Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection; Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate. He further argued that though the claimants were major children but it was pleaded that son was a student. The claimants were the legal heirs of the deceased and the Tribunal should have awarded the compensation by applying the multiplier method.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company argued that both the children were major and were independent, therefore, loss of dependency has rightly not been awarded by the Tribunal.
11. It would be pertinent to mention that Section 166 of the Act, entitles the legal heirs to claim compensation. There is no distinction made in the Section about legal heirs being major or minor. The Act provides that a claim petition for compensation can be filed by the legal heirs of the deceased. In the present case, there is no dispute that both the children are legal heirs of deceased Gurjit Singh.
12. This Court in Smt. Gurdev Kaur and others Versus Jharmal Singh and another 2017 (3) PLR 8, has held as under:
“12. There is no rebuttal to the statement of appellant claimant Smt. Gurdev Kaur the widow of deceased Mam Raj that she and her two sons are living jointly. Meaning thereby both the sons were living jointly with their deceased father. No doubt both of them are major and are doing the private job. One of them is getting the salary at the rate of Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- per month and the other is getting salary at the rate of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month. So, it is not a case where the sons of the deceased were drawing big salaries and they were not in need of any contribution to the family by their father. It is an admitted fact that even if a son is major and is earning, he does not stop looking to his father for financial help. The sons, even if they are major, do not lose the status of legal representatives, about which there is a reference in Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the ''Act''). Therefore, even the major sons and daughters are entitled to maintain the claim petition on the death of their father.”
13. This Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Paramjit Singh and others 2017 (1) PLR 364, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:
“9. A perusal thereof makes it clear that all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased may file application for compen
