Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1419
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
Kamlesh Kumari & others - Appellants
Versus
Daljit Singh & others - Respondents
FAO-6630 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 16-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Sachin Ohri
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma, Mr. Vinod Gupta
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of relevant legal parameters to reassess the compensation amount, including the increase in income towards future prospects and the deduction from income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Condonaion of Delay - Section 5 - [Section 5 of the Limitation Act] - The court allowed the prayer for condonation of delay of 237 days in filing the appeal, citing the possibility of excluding the period of delay while awarding interest in the event of any enhanced compensation being granted.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, following the death of Prem Sagar in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.25,08,329/- along with interest @ 6% per annum.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the appellants' contention regarding the increase in income towards future prospects and the deduction from income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, as per the parameters laid down in relevant judgments.
Issues: The issues included the cause of the accident, entitlement to compensation, maintainability of the petition, validity of the driver's license, and the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court directed a 25% increase in income towards future prospects and a 1/4th deduction from income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, based on relevant legal parameters.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, reassessed the compensation amount to Rs.34,21,504/-, and directed its release along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition, with the period of delay in filing the appeal excluded from the interest calculation.
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
CM-21512-CII-2017
Instant application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 237 days that has occurred in filing the appeal.
2. Keeping in view the averments made in the application and submissions made by counsel that in a claimants appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, the period of delay may be excluded while awarding interest in the eventuality of any enhanced compensation being granted, prayer is allowed.
3. Delay of 237 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.
Main Appeal
4. This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. Briefly, it may be noticed that a claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation to the extent of Rs.60 lacs on account of death of Prem Sagar in an accident that took place on 29.12.2014. Claimants were the widow, son aged 18 years, two minor daughters and widowed mother of the deceased.
6. Claimants had asserted that Prem Sagar (since deceased) while traveling in a TATA Sumo, was struck by a truck bearing registration no. PB-08-AJ-6491 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Daljit Singh and on account of the multiple grievous injuries suffered, Prem Sagar expired.
7. The claim petition having been contested, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-
“1. Whether Prem Sagar son of Amar Nath died in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration no. PB-08-AJ-6491 driven by respondent no.1? OPP
2. If Issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to grant of compensation, if so how much and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR
4. Whether the respondent no.1, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3
5. Whether the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo bearing No.PB-01-A-3262 by its driver? OPR3
6. Relief.”
8. In so far as Issue No.1 is concerned, findings were returned in favour of the claimants and it was held that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Daljit Singh and which has resulted in the death of Prem Sagar.
9. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.2,75,000/- per annum. The deduction of 1/3rd has been made from the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. By ascertaining the deceased to be in the age bracket of 46 to 50 years, a multiplier of 13 has been applied. An amount of Rs.1 lac has been awarded to the widow towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation amount computed is Rs.25,08,329/- and to be payable along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization.
10. Counsel representing the appellants has raised a two fold submission while seeking enhancement. It is contended that the aspect of increase in income towards future prospects has been completely overlooked. Second submission raised is that the Tribunal should have made a deduction of 1/4th from the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
11. I have also heard counsel for contesting respondent-Insurance Company and who would vehemently contend that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and adequate and does not warrant any interference.
12. Having heard counsel for the parties at length, I find sufficient merit in the contention raised by counsel representing the appellants.
13. The uncontroverted position is that the deceased was self employed and was in the age of 46 to 50 years. By applying the parameters/guidelines issued by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017
