IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

261 FAO-1709-2020 (O&M)

Date of decision: 09.01.2025 Smt. Parkasho Devi & Others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Mahender & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Yajat Gill, Advocate Mr. Mehnaz Preet Singh Chahal, Advocate for the appellants.

Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate Mr. Rajnesh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.3.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Prayer in the present appeal filed by the claimants is for modification of the Award dated 15.11.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) in MACP-300-2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to the extent that the appellants may kindly be granted compensation as prayed for in the claim petition before the learned Tribunal on account of death of Raj Singh.(cid:1)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Raj Singh had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 17.05.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.HR-63B-9639 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2, and insured by respondent No.3. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,96,240/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual realisation. The three claimants are the widow, son and mother of the deceased-Raj Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia submits that while assessing the compensation, the learned Tribunal has assessed the net income of the deceased as Rs.16,745/- per month. It is submitted that after his retirement from the Army, the deceased was serving as a Security Guard since 2011, and his gross salary was Rs.18,078/- per month. It is submitted that the claimants had proved salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.P5 however, the learned Tribunal has erroneously deducted the Provident Fund and ESI and has taken the monthly salary of the deceased as only Rs.16,745/-. Learned counsel contains that this deduction could not have been made in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sebastiani Lakra & Others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another” Civil Appeal Nos.10588-89 of 2018 decided on 12.10.2018. It is accordingly prayed that income of the deceased be taken as Rs.18,078/- per month.

4. It is further submitted that future prospects have also been applied on the lower side at the rate of 10%; whereas the same should be 20% as the deceased was working as a Security Guard and was retired from the Armed Forces; and was therefore in a ‘permanent salaried job’.

5. It is next contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was 55 years of age on the date of incident. However, multiplier of 9 has been applied, whereas multiplier of 11 ought to have been applied.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellants and submits that in the FIR (Ex.P1), the registration number of the alleged offending vehicle is mentioned as ‘HR-63B-9609’; whereas challan had been filed in respect of registration number ‘HR-63B-9639’. It is submitted that therefore, this casts a shadow of doubt cast as to whether the accident in question was caused by the driver of the offending vehicle or not. Reference is also made to the observations made by the learned Tribunal in Para 21 of the impugned Award, which is as under:- “21. So far as the income of the deceased from pension is concerned, it has been argued by learned counsel for respondent No.3- Insurance Company that the petitioners have not suffered any loss of income in this regard because as per statement of pension account Ex.P26, petitioners had received the pension of the deceased after his death. However, except d