Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 3181
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SNEH PRASHAR, J.
HARPREET KAUR – Appellant
Versus
HARDEEP SINGH – Respondent
FAO No. 1439 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided on : 02-06-2016
For the Appellant :Ms. Richa Mittal, Inderjeet Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent:D.P. Gupta, Advocate
The court emphasized the correct calculation of compensation for loss of dependency and future prospects, as well as the inclusion of additional amounts for funeral expenses and loss of love and affection.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Motor Accident Compensation - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 151
Fact of the Case:
The appellants sought enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of Gurmeet Singh in a vehicular accident. They argued that the Tribunal had made several errors in calculating the compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the appellants, partly allowing the appeal and modifying the award of the Tribunal to enhance the compensation payable to the appellants and another party.
Issues: Calculation of compensation, including loss of dependency, future prospects, income tax deduction, and loss of love and affection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the appropriate multiplier for loss of dependency, corrected errors in income calculation, and allowed additional amounts for funeral expenses and loss of love and affection.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the enhanced compensation was ordered to be paid within 45 days with interest if delayed.
SNEH PRASHAR, J.
CM-5948-CII-2012
There being delay of 19 days in refiling the appeal, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condonation of delay was filed by the appellants.
Considering the averments made in the application, the delay in refiling the appeal is condoned and the application is disposed of.
FAO-1439-2012
2. By way of this appeal, appellants-Harpreet Kaur and another seek enhancement of compensation awarded to them by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 27.08.2011 passed in MACT Case No.96 of 21.04.2009 on account of death of Gurmeet Singh (husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2) in a vehicular accident.
3. The submissions made by Ms. Richa Mittal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. D.P. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 have been heard and record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contends that at the time of accident the age of the deceased was 34 years. As is proved on the record, the carry home salary of the deceased was Rs. 26,500/- including Rs. 3500/- as remote area allowance, but learned Tribunal wrongly deducted the said amount of Rs. 3500/- from the income. Considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier to the amount of loss of dependency of the appellants was 16' whereas learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15'. No amount was added by learned Tribunal to the income of the deceased computing future prospects. The deduction of ?rd made by learned Tribunal from the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses is also wrong. Learned Tribunal further erred in deducting Rs. 3 lacs granted to the appellants by the Government as ex-gratia amount while computing compensation. Moreso, the income tax has been wrongly deducted from the annual dependency of the appellants. Also, nothing was awarded to the appellants on account of loss of love and affection.
5. Indeed, deceased Gurmeet Singh was working as System Admnistror in Akal College of Engineering & Technology, Baru Sahib, District Sirmaur (HP). PW4 Mohit Sharma, HR Executive from the said College, has proved on record the salary certificate Ex.P9 of the deceased. As per the said certificate, the total salary of the deceased was Rs. 26,500/- which includes Rs. 3500/- as remote area allowance. Learned Tribunal wrongly deducted the said allowance of Rs. 3500/- and took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 23,000/- which certainly needs correction. The income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 26,500/- per month i.e. Rs. 3,18,000/- per annum.
6. Perusal of the award shows that no amount was added to the income of the deceased computing future prospects. Following the ratio of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 170 since the deceased was 34 years aged when he died in the accident, there had to be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased on account of future prospects, which learned Tribunal failed to allow. However, for computing future prospects the amount of Rs. 3500/- will have to be deducted as it was payable only when the deceased would work in remote area. As such, adding 50% to the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects, the amount comes to Rs. 4,56,000/-. According to the slab given in the financial year 2008-2009, no tax was to be paid by a man of general category upto the income of Rs. 1,45,000/- and savings upto Rs. 1,00,000/- were permissible. Thus, deducting the amount of Rs. 2,45,000/- towards exemption limit and savings, the taxable income of the deceased comes to Rs. 2,11,000/-. Deducting Rs. 21,000/- towards income tax, according to the slab given in the relevant financial year, the amount comes to Rs. 4,35,000/-.
7. The deceased is survived by widow-Harpreet Kaur, daughter- Mandeep Kaur and mother-Sukhwinder Kaur. There being three dependents, the deduction of ?rd from the income of the decease
