Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1896
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill, J.
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Devi Kumari And Others - Respondent
FAO No. 7515 of 2016(O&M) and FAO No. 3160 of 2018(O&M).
Decided On : 26-07-2019
Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.7515 of 2016 and for respondent No.3 in FAO No.3160 of 2018; Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for respondents No.l to 3 in FAO No.7515 of 2016 and, for the appellants/claimants in FAO No.3160 of 2018; Mr. Vishal Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6 in FAO No.7515 of 2016 and for respondents No.l and 2 in FAO No.3160 of 2018
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Section 166, and the interpretation of legal provisions and judgments related to the determination of compensation in motor accident cases.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166, 279, 304A, 166 - The court discussed the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Section 166, and referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Versus Shashi Sharma and others, National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, Puttamma and others v. K.L.Narayana Reddy and another, and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. The court emphasized the deduction of the amount received under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of the Deceased Government Employees Scheme, 2006, and the addition in income at the rate of 30% on account of future prospects. The court also discussed the application of the split multiplier and the entitlement to various compensations for different heads of claim.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Rohtash in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which was challenged by the Insurance company seeking reduction and by the claimants seeking enhancement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It upheld the assessment of the deceased's income and made adjustments based on legal provisions and relevant judgments. The court modified the amount of compensation and allowed interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
Issues: Dispute over the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, application of legal provisions and judgments related to the Motor Vehicles Act, and entitlement to various compensations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal provisions and judgments to determine the compensation, including the deduction of the amount received under the 2006 Scheme, addition in income at the rate of 30% on account of future prospects, and the application of the split multiplier. It also emphasized the entitlement to various compensations for different heads of claim.
Final Decision: FAO No.7515 of 2016 filed by the Insurance company was dismissed with no order as to cost. FAO No.3160 of 2018 filed by the claimants was disposed of with the modification in the amount of compensation as detailed in the judgment.
JUDGMENT
Lisa Gill. J. - This judgment shall dispose of FAO No.7515 of 2016 (Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devi Kumari and others) and FAO No.3160 of 2018 (Devi Kumari and others v. Faruk and others), which arise out of the impugned award dated 17.08.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Tribunal').
2. FAO No.7515 of 2016 has been filed by the Insurance company seeking reduction of the compensation awarded to the claimants, whereas FAO No.3160 of 2018 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement thereof.
3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that, the claimants, who are the widow, minor children and mother of the deceased, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of death of Rohtash. It is pleaded in the claim petition that Rohtash died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 19.01.2013. FIR No.8 dated 19.01.2013 under Sections 279/304A IPC was registered against driver of the offending vehicle in respect to the accident. The deceased was 44 years old at the time of the accident. He was working as a S.S. Teacher in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Dahar, District Panipat, drawing a salary of Rs. 39,600/- per month. Compensation to the tune of Rs.85 lakhs was claimed.
4. Learned Tribunal on consideration of the facts and evidence on record concluded that the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck-traila bearing registration No. RJ-14GC-6525 by its driver, respondent - Faruk. Learned Tribunal while assessing income of the deceased-Rohtash as Rs.39,094/- per month, awarded a total sum of Rs.22,10,200/- to the claimants. Deceased was held to be 44 years old at the time of the accident. Deduction to the extent of l/4 th on account of personal expenses was effected. Split multiplier was applied by the learned Tribunal. Rs.50,000/-each was awarded to the claimants on account of loss of love and affection, besides, Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant-widow on account of loss of consortium. Rs.5,000/- on account of loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses was awarded to the claimants.
5. Learned counsel for Insurance company submits that excessive compensation has been awarded under the conventional heads, which should be reduced. It is further submitted that no ground for enhancement of the compensation is made out. It is, thus, prayed that appeal filed by the insurance company be allowed and that of the claimants be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the split multiplier. Moreover, increment on account of future prospects has not been afforded. It is, thus, prayed that the appeal filed by the claimants be allowed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file.
8. There is no dispute regarding death of Rohtash in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 19.01.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-14GC-6525 by respondent -Faruk. Finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard has attained finality. There is further no dispute regarding the age of the deceased to be 44 years at the time of the accident or the fact that he was working as a S.S. Teacher in the Govt. Senior Secondary School, Dahar. Income of the deceased has been correctly assessed as Rs.39,094/- per month after deduction of the component of income tax.
9. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Versus Shashi Sharma and others. 2016 ACJ 2723, the amount to be received by the claimants under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Depen
