FAO-2631-2010 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.205

FAO-2631-2010 (O&M)

Date of decision : 19.03.2021

Ajmer Kaur and others

..... Appellants

VERSUS

Mohinder Singh and others

.... Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL

Present:

Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants.

None for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

*****

SUDHIR MITTAL, J.

One Jagjit Singh met with an accident on 17.7.2008. On

account of injuries sustained in the accident, he died on 22.8.2008. The

accident took place while Jagjit Singh was riding his bicycle from village

Gharangana to Mansa. He was hit by a Canter bearing registration

No.RJ-13G-1830 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.2.

Claim was filed by his mother and father and upon death of the father, the

other sons and daughters were impleaded in his place. The claim petition

was allowed and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mansa (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) awarded compensation of Rs.2,45,573/-

alongwith interest @ 8% per annum.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amount of

compensation is inadequate. The deceased was 20 years of age and thus,

multiplier of 18 should have been applied. Deduction of 1/3 on account

of personal expenses is also illegal. Benefit of future prospects has been

RAMANDEEP SINGH

2021.03.19 10:46

FAO-2631-2010 (O&M) 2

denied. Thus, the compensation deserves to be enhanced. He placed

reliance upon National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009.

The judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case is the magna carta in

cases of motor accident claims. According to the said judgment, in case,

the deceased was 20 years of age, multiplier of 18 should be applied. The

income should be increased by 40% on account of future prospects and in

case of a bachelor, deduction of 50% should be made on account of

personal expenses.

In the present case, it is not in dispute that the deceased was

20 years of age and that he was a bachelor. He was earning Rs.2,500/-

per month being a labourer.

The Tribunal has erred in using the multiplier of 8 and in not

granting benefit of future prospects. Reduction of 50% on account of

personal expenses has also not been made. Thus, the compensation is

re-assessed as follows:-

Monthly income

Rs. 2,500/-

Annual income

Rs. 2,500 x 12 = 30,000/-

Reduction of 50% for personal

expenses

Rs. 15,000/-

Increase of 40% for future

prospects

Rs. 15,000+ 6,000 x 18 = Rs.3,78,000/-

Medical

reimbursement

expenses

Rs.65,573

Funeral expenses

Rs. 15,000/-

Total compensation

Rs. 4,58,573/-

FAO-2631-2010 (O&M) 3

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant-mother

shall also be entitled to be paid interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced

amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

(SUDHIR MITTAL)

JUDGE

19.03.2021

Ramandeep Singh

Whether speaking / reasoned

Yes / No

Whether Reportable

Yes/ No