FAO No. 6774 of 2017 (O&M)

2023:PHHC:077536

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(Sr. No. 223)

(1)

FAO No. 6774 of 2017 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 19.05.2023

Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited

...Appellant

Versus

Master Aryan and others

...Respondents

(2)

XOBJC-222-CII-2017 in

FAO No. 6774 of 2017

Date of Decision : 19.05.2023

Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited

...Appellant

Versus

Master Aryan and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company.

Mr. Charanji Lal, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 4.

Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for XOBJC.

Mr. Aakash Juneja, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

By the present order, FAO No. 6774 of 2017 as well as

XOBJC-222-CII-2017 are being decided.

Present appeal has been filed challenging the amount of

compensation assessed by the MACT vide Award dated 02.03.2017.

KANCHAN

2023.05.31 16:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgment

FAO No. 6774 of 2017 (O&M)

2023:PHHC:077536

2

Certain facts needs to be noticed for appreciation of controversy

in hand in correct perspective.

It may be noticed that on 30.06.2014, an accident occurred, in

which one Sumit Kumar, his wife Rashmi Kiran and his daughter Lakshita

died. After the death, separate claims were raised in respect of the death of

Sumit Kumar, Rashmi Kiran and Lakshita. The present appeal is relating to

the Award given in favour of the claimant in respect of death of Rashmi

Kiran. The Tribunal keeping in view the evidence, which came on record,

held that keeping in view the death of Rashmi Kiran, the claimant i.e. The

minor son-Aryan is entitled for compensation amounting to Rs. 31,25,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company argues

that while computing the compensation, the Tribunal has ignored two

relevant aspects, which need modification in the present appeal. As per the

learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the benefit of future prospects

has been given @ 50% even though, the deceased was a house wife, hence,

the future prospects could only be calculated @ 40%, due to which fact,

Award needs to be modified. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company

further argues that while assessing the income of the deceased-Rashmi

Kiran, the deductions have not been made even qua the personal expenses of

Rashmi Kiran as the total income assessed has been taken into account for

calculating the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the Insurance

Company submits that though there is only one claimant but as the family

consisted of four, 1/4^th deduction should have been made qua the personal

expenses while computing the compensation.

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants concedes the

factum and submits that they have no objection in case the Award is

KANCHAN

2023.05.31 16:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgment

FAO No. 6774 of 2017 (O&M)

2023:PHHC:077536

3

modified to the extent as being claimed in this appeal.

As the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company has been accepted by the learned counsel for the respondents-

claimants, the compensation for which the claimants are entitled for, is as

under :-

1.

Income

₹

Assessed - 10,000/-

2.

Future increase

40% increase as per latest Supreme Court

judgment in case of NIC vs. Pranay Sethi,

as deceased was 36 years old (MACT had

granted 50%).

3.

Income after future increase

₹10,000 + ₹4,000 = ₹14,000/-

4.

Multiplier

16

5.

Deduction

1/4th (No deduction by MACT)

6.

Dependency after 1/4th

deduction

₹14,000 - ₹3,500 = ₹10,500/-

7.

Compensation

₹10,500 x 12 x 16 = ₹20,16,000/-

8.

Loss of Consortium

NIL

9.

Loss of Estate

NIL

10.

Loss of Love and affection to

minor son granted by MACT =

2,00,000/-

₹2,00,000-

11.

Funeral Expenses

₹25,000/-

12.

Medical Expenses

₹20,000/-

13.

Total compens