Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Archana Puri, J.
Balwinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Rohtak District Transport Coop. Society Ltd. (M/s) – Respondent
F.A.O. No. 7718 of 2015
Decided On : 09-02-2024
For the Parties : Mr. Ishan Singh Cooner, Mr. J.S. Cooner, Mr. Harinder Kumar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to assess compensation for non-earning victims, particularly homemakers, based on the services rendered and to consider future prospects, as highlighted in relevant case law.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicular Accident - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, Section 168, Section 163-A - Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, 2001(8) SCC 197, Arun Kumar Aggarwal vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2010(9) SCC 218, Kirti and another v/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2021(2) SCC 166 - The court discussed the compensation for non-earning victims, particularly homemakers, and emphasized the assessment of compensation based on the services rendered by the homemaker. It also highlighted the need for a broad interpretation of the term 'services' and the consideration of future prospects. The court applied these principles to re-compute the compensation for the deceased in the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals sought enhancement of compensation for the death of two individuals in a motor vehicular accident. The claim petitions were decided on the same date, and the appellants argued that the compensation granted by the Tribunal was inadequate.
Finding of the Court:
The court re-computed the compensation for the deceased individuals, considering their roles as homemakers and the loss suffered by their dependents. It applied principles from relevant case law to determine just and reasonable compensation, ultimately allowing the appeals and enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Issues: The main issue was the adequacy of the compensation granted by the Tribunal for the death of the individuals in the motor vehicular accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied principles from relevant case law to re-compute the compensation, emphasizing the assessment of compensation for non-earning victims, particularly homemakers, and the consideration of future prospects.
Final Decision: Both appeals were allowed, and the court re-computed the compensation for the deceased individuals, enhancing the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
Judgment
Mrs. Archana Puri, J.
These two above captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants-claimants, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation, granted by learned Tribunal, on account of death of Kiranpreet Kaur @ Kiranbir Kaur and Khushpreet Kaur, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 26.03.2012.
2. The respective claim petitions, arising from the same accident, though were filed separately, but the same were decided on the same date i.e. 22.07.2015.
3. FAO-7718-2015 relates to the Award passed qua death of Kiranpreet Kaur @ Kiranbir Kaur and FAO-7719-2015 relates to the Award passed qua death of Khushpreet Kaur.
4. On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned Tribunal, vide respective Awards, had granted compensation to the extent of Rs.7,88,000/-, on account of death of Kiranpreet Kaur @ Kiranbir Kaur and vide separate Award, also granted compensation to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-, on account of death of Khushpreet Kaur.
5. So far as the fact of accident and manner of its taking place, as well as liability, so fastened upon the respondents is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that no appeal has been filed by the respondents, who were made so liable, to challenge the Award and thus, this issue does not warrant any further scrutiny.
6. So far as FAO-7718-2015 relating to the death of Kiranpreet Kaur @ Kiranbir Kaur is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that Kiranpreet Kaur @ Kiranbir Kaur was 25 years old, at the time of accident. She was engaged in stitching garments and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Furthermore, it is submitted that deceased Kiranpreet Kaur @ Kiranbir Kaur was a talented person, who used to take care of the family, besides, following the vocation of stitching. Now, on account of her death, it is submitted that the appellant No.1-Balwinder Singh as well as minor child Amrit Pal Singh, who was 4 years, at the time of death of Kiranpreet Kaur @ Kiranbir Kaur, have been deprived of the gratuitous services rendered by deceased Kiranpreet Kaur @ Kiranbir Kaur. However, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that keeping in view the loss caused to the appellants, learned Tribunal, has erroneously considered the earnings of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month. In fact, it is too meagre an amount. Considering the same, it is submitted that consequential work on of the compensation, as such, is also inadequate. As such, a prayer has been made for acceptance of the appeal and re-computation of the compensation.
7. So far as, FAO-7719-2015 is concerned, relating to the death of Khushpreet Kaur, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that deceased was 1½ year old, at the time of accident and she was daughter of appellant No.1 and sister of appellant No.2, who have been deprived of the company of the deceased child. Considering the same and also considering the prevalent law, it is submitted that the compensation of Rs.1 lakh granted by learned Tribunal is also inadequate. As such, qua the same, also, a prayer has been made for the acceptance of the appeal.
8. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that looking at the kind of evidence, coming on record, the compensation, so granted, is just and reasonable, which calls for no further enhancement. As such, he submits that both the appeals sans merit and the same deserve to be dismissed.
9. In view of the submissions so made, record has been perused by this Court.
10. Firstly, let us consider the compensation, vis-a-vis, death of Kiranpreet Kaur @ Kiranbir Kaur. In view of the prevalent settled law, the compensation, so worked upon, calls for re-computation.
11. Even, though, it is pleaded about indulgence of deceased Kiranpreet Kaur @ Kiranbir Kaur, in stitching work, but however, no substantial evidence has been led, on th
