Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1383
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Ralla Singh And Another - Appellants
Vs.
Bhajan Singh And Others - Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 600 of 2015, 601 of 2015, 602 of 2015, 603 of 2015, 604 of 2015, 605 of 2015, 606 of 2015, 608 of 2015, 609 of 2015, 610 of 2015, 611 of 2015, 612 of 2015, 613 of 2015, 614 of 2015, 615 of 2015, 616 of 2015, 617 of 2015, 618 of 2015, 619 of 2015, 620 of 2015, 672 of 2015
Decided On : 13-05-2019
Amit Singla, Adv., Bhavdeep Mamli, Adv., Vandana Malhotra, Adv., Rajneesh Malhotra, Adv.
Headnote:
The court enhanced the compensation awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased and injured victims of a motor accident, considering the notional income, multiplier, and conventional heads of compensation as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. The court also clarified that the claimants could recover the compensation from either or both of the joint tortfeasors, i.e., the owner, driver, and insurer of the offending vehicle or the driver, owner, and insurer of the four-wheeler.
Fact of the Case:
In a motor accident case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased and injured victims. The claimants filed appeals challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the MACT.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notional income assessed by the MACT was on the lower side and needed to be enhanced. The court considered the minimum wages at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased and injured, and the fact that they were housewives. The court also applied the multiplier as per the age of the deceased and injured and awarded compensation under conventional heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium.
Issues: 1. Whether the notional income assessed by the MACT was appropriate? 2. Whether the multiplier applied by the MACT was correct? 3. Whether the compensation awarded under conventional heads was adequate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notional income assessed by the MACT was on the lower side and needed to be enhanced. The court considered the minimum wages at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased and injured, and the fact that they were housewives. The court also applied the multiplier as per the age of the deceased and injured and awarded compensation under conventional heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium. 2. The court held that the multiplier applied by the MACT was correct and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. 3. The court held that the compensation awarded under conventional heads was adequate and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and enhanced the compensation awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased and injured victims.
JUDGMENT :
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Aggrieved of the award dated 25.09.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in MACT Cases No. RBT-16-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-17-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-23-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-60-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-25- MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-32-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-18-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-24-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-31-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-21-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-34-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-27- MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-59-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-26-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-33-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-58-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-20-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-22-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-19- MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-29-MACT of 2011/2013, RBT-28-MACT of 2011/2013 and RBT-30-MACT of 2011/2013, the afore-said appeals have been filed. As these arise out of same accident and one award, these are being disposed of vide common order.
2. The driver, registered owner and insurer (i.e. Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd.) of bus bearing registration No. RJ-31- PA-0002 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') have been arrayed as respondents No.1 to 3 respectively in all the appeals.
3. The facts emanating from the record are that on the ill-fated day of 28.11.2010, Karnail Kaur along-with Jasbir Kaur and other family members were coming back in four-wheeler bearing registration No. HR47-A-3821 (hereinafter referred to as 'four-wheeler') after attending the bhog ceremony of Budh Singh. The four-wheeler in which they were travelling met with an accident near village Haroli. The four-wheeler was struck by the offending vehicle. As a result of the impact, the occupants of the four-wheeler sustained injuries and following persons i.e. Hans Raj, Karnail Kaur, Jasbir Kaur, Sarvjeet Kaur, Gurmeet Kaur, Kesar Kaur, Karnail Kaur @ Kailo and Tejo Kaur, succumbed to the injuries. FIR No. 467, dated 28.11.2010 was registered at Police Station Ratia, District Fatehabad.
4. The Tribunal after considering the facts and appreciating the evidence adduced held that the accident was result of contributory negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. 25% negligence was attributed to the driver of the offending vehicle. It was ordered that the compensation awarded shall be recovered from the respondents jointly and severally.
FAO No. 600 of 2015 in MACT Case No. RBT-16-MACT-2011/2013
5. The legal representatives of Karnail Kaur, are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').
6. In the claim proceedings it was pleaded that the deceased was 58 years old at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 4000/- per month being labourer. But, the claimants failed to prove the occupation and monthly earning of the deceased. Considering her to be house-wife, the Tribunal assessed her notional income as Rs. 2500/- per month and multiplier of 9' was applied. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum. The amount awarded included Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record produced by them.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the notional income assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side. His grievance is that the amounts under the conventional heads be awarded as per the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) AIR SC 5157.
9. Learned counsel for the insurer argues that the claimants failed to prove the occupation and earning of the deceased. He defends the income assessed by the Tribunal.
10. The deceased was survived by husband and three sons, who are in their late 30's. In the claim proceedings, the claimants failed to prove the occupation and monthly earning of the deceased, in such circumstances the Tribunal has rightly considered the deceased as house-wife.
