FAO-4494-2022 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-4494-2022 (O&M)

Reserved on: 07.12.2022

Pronounced on:15.12.2022

United Insurance Company Ltd.

........ Appellant

Versus

Manish Thapa and Others

......... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:- Mr.Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate,

for the appellant- Insurance Company.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

CM-13702-CII-2022:

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 48 days

in filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which are

supported by an affidavit, sufficient cause has been shown for condoning

the delay on account of change of office, thus, the same is allowed and

delay of 48 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

MAIN CASE:

The present appeal lays challenge to an award dated

05.05.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Pathankot

(in

brevity,

‘the

Tribunal’),

whereby

compensation

of

Rs.8,66,000/- has been awarded to respondent No.1 & 2/ claimants along

with interest @7.5% per annum.

Claim petition filed at the instance of respondent No.1 & 2, on

account of death of their mother Smt. Birla Thapa in an accident dated

26.09.2019, was partly allowed by the learned Tribunal and after

ANIL KUMAR

2022.12.16 12:09

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO-4494-2022 (O&M)

2

considering her as a home maker and having assessed her income as

Rs.9,000/- per month, awarded compensation of Rs.8,66,000/-.

Being aggrieved against the award dated 05.05.2022, the

present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ Insurance Company

on the question of quantum of compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company

contends that assessment of notional income of deceased as Rs. 9,000/-

per month, is on higher side and therefore, award is liable to be modified. In

support of his contention, he places reliance upon “Rajendra Singh and

ors vs National Insurance Company Ltd. and ors” reported as 2020(3)

R.C.R(Civil) 26, in which the notional income of non earning housewife was

considered at Rs.5,000/- per month and also on “Kirti and anr vs Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd.”, reported as 2021(1) R.C.R(Civil) 478, in which

the notional income was assessed at Rs.5,547/- per month. He also places

reliance

upon

the

judgment

of

Hon’ble

Apex

Court

in

“S.

Chandrasekharan and others vs M. Dinakar and another”, reported as

2022(3) R.C.R (Civil) 845, to contend that deduction on account of

personal expenses has not been made in the present case and therefore,

on this account as well, the award is liable to be modified.

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant- Insurance

Company, however, I am unable to accept his contentions. In Rajendra

Singh’s case (supra), relied upon by him, accident took place in 2012 and

similarly, in Kirti’s case (supra), accident took place in 2014, so if during

that period of time, income was assessed at Rs.5000-5500/-, then in the

present case, where the accident occurred in 2019, if the notional income,

on account of taking care of the family members, has been taken as

Rs.9000 it cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. Even in Kirti’s

ANIL KUMAR

2022.12.16 12:09

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO-4494-2022 (O&M)

3

case (supra), it has been noted that different methods can be applied by

the courts to assess the income in such cases, depending up on the facts

and circumstance of particular case. It is further to be noted that the

minimum wages in 2019 were much higher than the notional income

assessed in the present case. Sight can also not be lost of the fact that in

case of a male person, even if there is no evidence regarding the income,

compensation is generally awarded after taking into consideration the

minimum wages prevailing at that time. In my considered opinion, as the