JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J. 

CM-INCOMP-956-2024

This application has been filed under Rule 2 Volume V Chapter 1-C of Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders read with Order 22 Rule 2, Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for deleting the name of Smt. Shayamo widow of Parbha, performa respondent No.5 from the array of respondents who died during the pendency of the present appeal.

For valid and good reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and name of Smt. Shayamo widow of Parbha, performa respondent No.5 is ordered to be deleted from the array of respondents.

Registry is directed to do the needful.

MAIN CASE

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 01.09.2006 passed in the claim petition bearing No. 62 of 13.05.2006 filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs. 3,62,064/- on account of death of Kehar Singh in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 26.07.2005.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contend that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. He further contends:-

i) that the deceased was 32 of years age and was employed as a helper in M/s Hindustan Everest Tools Private Limited and he was getting a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. He was also earning Rs. 2,000/- per month by doing over time job.

ii) that the monthly salary of the deceased has been proved as Rs.3,209 but the learned Tribunal has considered only Rs. 2,875/- per month after deduction of PF etc.

iii) that the learned Tribunal has erred in deducting l/3rd instead of l/4th towards personal expenses.

iv) that amount awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of consortium is on lower side and no amount has been awarded towards loss of estate.

Therefore, the present appeal be allowed and the enhanced compensation be awarded to the appellants as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation, as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

6. A perusal of the award shows that the deceased was 32 of years age and was employed as a helper in M/s Hindustan Everest Tools Private Limited at the time of accident. However, the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of deceased as Rs.2,875/- which was carry home salary. A perusal of the award shows that the salary of the deceased is proved as Rs.3,209/- per month through the testimony of PW-2 Manoj Bhargav, Assistant Manager of M/s Hindustan Everest Tools Private Limited who has proved on record salary slip of deceased as Ex.P-2. Further the learned Tribunal erred in deducting l/3rd instead of l/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. Further the amount awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of consortium is on lower side which needs to be enhanced and no amount has been awarded towards loss of estate. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121], laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under:-

30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is ca