268 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 05.05.2025 New India Assurance Company Limited ... Appellant(s)

Versus Mangi Devi & Ors ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 7.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded vide the impugned award dated 06.09.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’).

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute and only the quantum is being challenged, the facts are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

3. In the present case the Tribunal had awarded the following compensation :

Sr. No. Heads Calculation

1. Monthly Income ₹10,520/-

2. Deduction 1/5^th ₹8,416/- [₹10,520 – 2,104]

3. Annual Income ₹1,00,992/- [₹8,416 x 12]

4. Multiplier ‘15’ ₹15,14,880/- [₹1,00,992 x 15] 5. Future prospects @ 50% ₹7,57,440/- [₹4,208 x 12 x 15]

6. Funeral and conveyance ₹25,000/-

expenses

7. Loss of love and affection ₹1,00,000/- 8. Loss of consortium ₹1,00,000/-

Total Compensation ₹24,97,320/-

Interest 9% per annum

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that in the present case the Tribunal has applied Deputy Commissioner rates instead of minimum wages and, hence, the income of the deceased as assessed is on the higher side. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], an addition of 40% ought to have been made towards future prospects instead of 50%. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further states that he does not challenge the multiplier as the deceased was 36 years of age and the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘15’. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that in the present case the father of the deceased is not dependent since there is no evidence on the record to show that he was dependent on the deceased and, hence, 1/4^th deduction ought to have been applied instead of 1/5^th

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7/claimants has contended that this is a case where the amount of compensation would have to be reworked inasmuch as the amounts awarded under the conventional heads and under the head ‘loss of consortium’ are not as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642]. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that while assessing the income of the deceased, the Deputy Commissioner rates have rightly been applied by the Tribunal. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the deceased was 36 years of age at the time of the accident and has left behind four minor children aged 3 to 11 years, his wife aged 32 years and his parents, and they have their whole lives ahead of them. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7/claimants has further contended that even though no cross-objection or appeal has been preferred by the respondent Nos.1 to 7/claimants, however, as per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court has power to pass an order notwithstanding that an appeal or cross-objection has not been filed by the claimants/respondents especially in view of the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surekha & Ors. vs. Santosh &

Ors