Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2283
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Savitri Devi and others - Appellants
Versus
Ram Pal and others - Respondents
FAO 120 of 2004
Decided On : 11-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for New India Assurance Company Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicles Act and the 1988 Act in determining compensation for a motor accident, including the assessment of income, deductions, and the awarding of compensation for loss of love and affection.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - 2016 (2) LAR 269, 2009(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 77, 2013 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 170, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, 2013(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 817, 2015(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 520 - The court discussed the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the 1988 Act in determining compensation for a motor accident. It highlighted the assessment of deceased's income, deductions for personal and living expenses, application of multipliers, and the awarding of compensation for loss of love and affection.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a motor accident due to rash and negligent driving, resulting in his death. The claimants sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence and legal provisions to determine the appropriate compensation for the claimants, considering the deceased's income, deductions, and other relevant factors.
Issues: Assessment of deceased's income, deductions for personal and living expenses, application of multipliers, and the awarding of compensation for loss of love and affection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles from various cases to determine the compensation, including the assessment of income, deductions, and the awarding of compensation for loss of love and affection.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at a specified rate.
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
1. This is an appeal arising out of award dated 11.10.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'). The widow, two minor daughters and two minor sons of deceased Mohinder Singh filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed a total claim of Rs.3,16,500/- to the claimants. Aggrieved of the said order, the present appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation.
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that on 4th March, 2002, Mohinder Singh (deceased) at around 8.00 p.m. started from shop from Assandh town and was going towards his house situated on Assandh-Salwan Road. While crossing the road, he was struck by the 'Yamaha' Motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-40-8743. The said motorcycle was being driven by Dr. Ram Pal in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed. Due to impact, the deceased sustained multiple injuries on vital parts of his body and ultimately succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The motorcycle was owned by Sanjay Goel and was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd.
3. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence and witnesses produced held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving. Further, it was held that driver was holding a valid licence. With regard to the compensation part, the Tribunal was not satisfied with the claim made by the claimants that the deceased was Mistri and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. The Tribunal took his wages equivalent to daily wager i.e Rs.2400/- per month. A deduction of 1/3rd for his self expenses was made and considering his age as 39 years, a multiplier of 17 was applied. A sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded for loss of consortium and Rs.4300/- was given for funeral expenses. The claimants were awarded a total sum of Rs.3,16,500/-.
4. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation. It was claimed that the deceased was working as a mason and was earning Rs.6,000/- monthly salary. Salary register Ex.P4 was produced. The register showed that the deceased was working with M/s Dangi Engineering Work, Karnal. The Tribunal rejected the register as being not maintained in due course of business. The Tribunal on perusal of the register found that there were only two employees shown to be working, moreover the register started in April 2001 and the last entry was of March, 2002. Since the evidence with regard to the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month was rejected by the Tribunal, the Tribunal treated the deceased as a daily wager and took his notional monthly income as Rs.2400/-.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the deceased was survived by 5 dependents, i.e. two minor daughters, two minor sons and widow, therefore, the Tribunal erred in making 1/3rd deduction, on account of self expenses.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company argued that 1/3rd deduction is the minimum which should have been made for self expenses and award of the Tribunal in this regard calls for no interference.
7. This Court in Punjab State Bus Stand & Management Company Ltd. (PUNBUS) and others vs. Harjit Kaur and others, 2016 (2) LAR 269 held as under :-
“12 PW3 Charan Dass stated that the deceased was working as Home Guard on daily wages basis and was getting Rs.386/- per day as wages and Rs.80/- as washing allowance per month. His monthly salary was Rs.12,046/-. However, during his cross-examination he stated that the services of the deceased could be terminated at any time as he was working on daily wage basis. Thus, considering the deceased as a casual labourer, the income of the deceased was rightly assessed as Rs.7500/- per month by learned Tribunal. The age of the deceased was taken as 44 years and the multiplier of 14' was rightly applied. There were four dependents on the income of the deceased namely his wife-Harjit Kaur, son-Tejinder Singh and daughters-Manpreet Kaur a
