233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-6308-2013 Date of decision: 11.03.2025 Meena Devi and others ...Appellants Versus Sanjiv Bhatia and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate and Ms. Diksha Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Widow, three minor children and parents of the deceased namely Santosh Kumar have filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation which had been awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 01.08.2013.

2. The fact that the deceased had died in an accident which took place on 25.06.2011 with the offending vehicle which was being driven by respondent No.1 and was owned by respondent No.2 and was insured by respondent No.3 is not in dispute. The only issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is with respect to the amount of compensation to which the appellants-claimants are entitled to.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the present case, the Tribunal had not given the benefit of 40% future prospects to which the claimants are entitled to. It is submitted that with respect to loss of consortium, only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- had been awarded whereas an amount of Rs.2,88,000/- is payable to the present appellants/claimants, as there are six claimants and as per settled law, an amount of Rs.48,000/- with respect to each of the claimants is to be awarded. It is further submitted that funeral expenses to the extent of Rs.10,000/- had been awarded by the Tribunal whereas an amount of Rs.18,000/- should have been awarded on the said account. It is argued that nothing had been awarded by the Tribunal on account of loss of estate whereas an amount of Rs.18,000/- on the said account was also required to be awarded. It is argued that in view of the same, an additional amount of Rs.6,17,200/- should be awarded to the appellants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported as (2018) 18 SCC

130

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3- Insurance Company has submitted that the rate of interest on the additional amount of compensation as sought by the learned counsel for the appellants is highly excessive and at best, the rate of interest at the rate of 6% per annum should be granted to the appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted a revised chart after taking into consideration the objection raised by learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. The said chart is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“Meena Devi & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Sanjiv Bhatia & ors. …Respondents

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book and has also considered the said revised chart and the same has been found to be in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld. 7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in para 42 of Sarla Verma’s case (Supra) had observed as under:-

“We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years,