206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2483-2006 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 24.01.2025 Satya Narain through his legal representatives and another ......Appellants Vs.

Sukhbir Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Palak Jain, Advocate, for the appellants.

Ms. Simran, Advocate, for Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 25.05.2005 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on account of death of Ramesh Kumar in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 12.02.2001.

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

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. He further contends that at the time of alleged accident, deceased-Ramesh Kumar was only 21 years old and was a student of 4^th Semester of Electrical Engineering. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum and has lost the sight of the fact that a fresh engineering graduate are getting a salary of Rs.12,000/- to 25,000/- per month. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon following judgments:-

(i) Jyoti Aggarwal and others Vs. Hare Ram Sahu and others, 2011(6) R.C.R. (Civil) 15, (ii) Bidya Devi Vs. Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla and others, 2016(3) ILR (H.P) 1357, (iii)M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A.

Senthikumar and others, 2021(1) TNMAC 805 : 2022 ACJ 418, (iv)Rajamurthy and others Vs. Kandasamy and others, 2020(2) T.N.M.A.C. 169 : 2021 ACJ 1421, (v) M. Sankaran and others Vs. K. Dievendran and others, 2017(2) An.WR 638 and (vi)National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Fathimath Zuhara @

Zuhra Razak, 2016 ACJ 2742.

4. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted the personal expenses and has also erred in applying the multiplier of 17 instead of 18. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has also erred in awarding meager amount towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Moreover, no amount has been granted towards future prospects and loss of estate. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced, as per latest law.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed by the learned Tribunal and the amount of compensation as assessed by it has rightly been granted. He prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

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

7. A perusal of the award shows:-

(i) That deceased-Ramesh Kumar was 21 years old and was a student of 4^th Semester of Electrical Engineering.

(ii) That the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum.

(iii) That the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3 instead of 1/2 towards personal expenses and has wrongly applied the multiplier of 17 instead of 18.

(iv) That the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding meager amount towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Moreover, no amount has been awarded towards future prospects and loss of estate.

Hence, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

8. For assessing the notional income of the deceased, wh