SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(P&H) 1678

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
B.S. WALIA, J.
Amandeep Kaur & Others - Appellants
Versus
Pritpal Singh & Ors. - Respondents
Cross Objection No. 167-CII of 2014 & FAO No. 2244 of 2013
Decided On : 25-05-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. M.S. Balianwali
For the Respondent: Mr. Paul S. Saini, Mr. Vipul Sharma

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of key legal provisions from relevant Supreme Court decisions in determining and enhancing the compensation for a motor vehicle accident case.

Headnote:

Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others - 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation - 2009 ACJ 1298 - 30, 42, 61(iv), 61(v), 61(viii - The court discussed the application of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others and Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation in determining the compensation for a motor vehicle accident. Key legal provisions such as deduction for personal and living expenses, addition of future prospects, loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses were interpreted and applied to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal was filed for enhancement of compensation in a motor vehicular accident case where the deceased's family claimed that the awarded amount did not consider future prospects and conventional heads as per relevant Supreme Court decisions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needed enhancement based on the application of key legal provisions from relevant Supreme Court decisions. The court modified the award and enhanced the compensation, considering future prospects, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

Issues: The issues revolved around the calculation of compensation in the motor vehicle accident case, specifically related to future prospects, conventional heads, and the application of multipliers for determining the compensation amount.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles outlined in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others and Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation to interpret and apply key legal provisions such as deduction for personal and living expenses, addition of future prospects, loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses in determining the enhanced compensation.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the court modified the award, enhancing the compensation for the claimants along with interest. The cross-objections were also disposed of accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. WALIA, J.

1. Appeal has been filed by the widow, minor daughter, minor son, mother and father of deceased Gurpreet Singh, who died in a motor vehicular accident on 6.7.2009 at the age of 31 years.

2. Prayer is for enhancement of compensation on the ground that no amount has been awarded towards future prospects, amount awarded on account of conventional heads is only Rs. 9500/- whereas in terms of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others-2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, the appellants are entitled to Rs. 70,000/-. Besides, Rs. 3500/- was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased whereas in accordance with paragraph No. 30 of the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra) as referred to in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), deduction was to be made @ 1/4th of the income of the deceased.

3. Insurance Company, on the other hand, has filed cross-objections No. 167-CII of 2014 on the ground that multiplier of 17 was incorrectly applied and multiplier of 16 was required to be applied in view of paragraph No. 42 of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation', 2009 ACJ 1298 as referred to in Pranay Sethi's case (supra).

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Admittedly, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs. 10,000/- per month out of which deduction of Rs. 3500/- was made towards personal expenses of the deceased. Since there are four dependents of the deceased, in terms of paragraph No.30 of the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra) as referred to in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), deduction for personal expenses is to be made @ 1/4th. Paragraph No. 61(v) of the decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and paragraph No. 30 of the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra) are reproduced hereunder :

Paragraph No. 61(v) of the decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra)

(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore”.

Paragraph No. 30 of the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra)

“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this 37 (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 31 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.”

7. No amount has been awarded on account of future prospects. In view of paragraph No.61(iv) of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), where the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income is to be made where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Admittedly, the deceased was 31 years of age. He was self employed and his income was assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per month. Accordingly, addition of 40% of the established income minus the tax component is to be taken into account for the purpose of working out the amount payable towards future prospects. Relevant extract of the aforementioned decision is reproduced as under:-

“61 (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top