Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 1890
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
DEV RAJ AND OTHERS — Appellant
Vs.
RAM CHANDER AND OTHERS — Respondent
FAO No. 41 of 2012 (O and M)
Decided on : 05-11-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :S.K. Verma, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for calculating compensation in motor accident cases, including the addition of future prospects and the enhancement of compensation for specific heads.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - Indian Penal Code, Sections 279, 337, 304-A - Indian Penal Code, Sections 279, 337, 304-A - The court discussed the compensation awarded for the death of Sunita in a motor accident, the liability of the offending vehicle, and the calculation of future prospects. Key legal provisions include the principles established in various cases such as Munna Lal Jain and others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal is against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, awarding compensation for the death of Sunita in a motor accident. The claimants alleged that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal concluded that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation to the appellants-claimants.
Issues: The issues included the calculation of future prospects, compensation for transportation and funeral expenses, and loss of consortium for the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles established in various cases to determine the compensation, including the addition of 50% in the income of the deceased towards future prospects and the enhancement of compensation for loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, and the award of the Tribunal was modified to allow enhanced compensation for the death of Sunita. The claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 13,72,500/- with interest, to be shared equally among the claimants.
Surinder Gupta, J.
This is an appeal against the award dated 29.04.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (later referred to as the Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs. 7,85,000/- has been awarded to the appellants-claimants on account of death of Sunita wife of appellant-claimant No. 1 and mother of appellants-claimants No. 2 to 4 in a motor accident.
2. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 08.06.2009, Sunita (later referred to as the deceased) along with Satbir Singh and claimants No. 2 to 4 was going to village Kulana on motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-24F/2976, being driven by Satbir Singh at a moderate speed. Claimant No. 1 along with his brother Gopi Ram was following them on another motorcycle, being driven by Gopi Ram. At about 3.00 P.M. when they reached near Utsav Hotel, Satrod Kalan, a bus bearing registration No.HR-56/2948 (later referred to as the offending vehicle) being driven by respondent No. 1-Ram Chander at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the motorcycle of Satbir, due to which all the occupants including the deceased fell down on the road and received serious and multiple injuries on their persons. The deceased was crushed under the wheel of offending vehicle and died at the spot. The accident was witnessed by Satbir Singh, Gopi Ram and claimant No. 1. FIR No. 50 dated 08.06.2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code was registered against respondent No. 1.
3. Respondent No. 1 Ram Chander, driver of the offending vehicle, contested the claim petition, submitting that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle with a mini truck and not with the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was falsely involved in the criminal case in connivance with the police only to grab compensation.
4. Respondents No. 2 and 3, owners of the offending vehicle, also contested the claim petition and had taken the similar plea as taken by respondent No. 1 in his written statement.
5. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, respondent No. 4 insurer of offending vehicle, contested the claim petition inter-alia on the ground that respondent No. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It has also denied the accident with the offending vehicle and pleaded false involvement of offending vehicle, due to collusion of claimants with the police just to grab compensation.
6. On appraisal of evidence, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No. 1. The income of the deceased was taken @ Rs. 5000/- per month. After making deduction of 1/4th from the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses and by applying multiplier of 17 in view of age of the deceased as 30 years, a compensation of Rs. 7,85,000/- was allowed which included Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium for appellant No. 1.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their assistance.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has argued that the Tribunal has not allowed any compensation towards future prospects. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, which was 30 years, addition of 50% was required to be made in the income of the deceased towards future prospects. He has placed reliance on the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Munna Lal Jain and others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others 2015(3)RCR (Civil) 447 and Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54. The Tribunal has allowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses while as per the observations in case of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir and others (supra); Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and Others, AIR 2013 SC 3830 ; and Smt. Savita Vs. Bindar Singh and Other
