Allowed

K.B.Jayamma and Ors. v. Virender Singh and Ors.

J&K HC1 Aug 2023MA/326/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh allowed an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award. The Court modified the compensation quantum, enhancing the loss of dependency amount due to the deceased's age, recalculating income with 30% enhancement, and awarding additional compensation for loss of consortium, parental consortium, and loss of estate.

What did the court decide?

Modified the impugned award; total compensation enhanced to Rs. 13,98,120/- including interest; respondents directed to deposit the amount with the Court Registry.

K.B.Jayamma and Ors. Vs Virender Singh and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | J&K HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

MA No. 326/2010 (O&M)

¶4

K. B. Jayamma and others …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

¶5

Through: Mr. Divyanshu Malhotra, Adv.

¶6

¶7

Virender Singh and others

¶8

.…. Respondent(s)

¶9

Through: Mr. Sandeep Gupta, CGSC for Nos. 2 and 3

¶10

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

¶11

ORDER

¶12

ORAL

¶13

This appeal arises out of the award dated 24.07.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short „the Tribunal‟) in claim petition, titled, “K. B. Jayamma and others vs Varinder Singh and others”, by virtue of which, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 8,62,200/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till liquidation, to the appellants.

¶14

The appellants have impugned the award to the extent that just compensation has not been awarded to the appellants.

¶15

Mr. Divyanshu Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants vehemently argued that the future prospects in respect of the earning of the deceased have not been taken into account while determining the compensation and further that instead of applying multiplier of 15, multiplier of 13 has been applied. He further submitted that no

¶16

¶17

MA No. 326/2010

¶18

compensation has been awarded in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on account of loss of parental consortium and further compensation awarded to appellant No. 1 on account of loss of consortium is on lesser side. He further urged that no compensation has been awarded on account of loss of estate.

¶19

Per contra , Mr. Sandeep Gupta, learned CGSC appearing for respondents 2 and 3 vehemently argued that the appellants have miserably failed to prove the salary of the deceased who was working as a Head Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶20

¶21

Heard and perused the record.

¶22

Since the issue involved in the present appeal is in respect of the quantum only as the respondents have not chosen to assail the award passed by the learned Tribunal, as such, there is no necessity to mention in detail, the facts necessitating the appellants to file claim petition except to the extent that the appellant No. 1 i.e. the wife of the deceased-B. V. S. Gowda and appellants 2 and 3 being daughters of deceased filed a claim petition for grant of compensation on account of death of B. V. S. Gowda who suffered serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 30.06.2005 and ultimately expired.

¶23

A perusal of the award reveals that the deceased was working as a Head Constable in the CRPF and was 40 years of age. The learned Tribunal has determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 8,000/- per month

¶24

¶25

MA No. 326/2010

¶26

despite the fact that the said monthly income was not at all proved by the appellants.

¶27

Be that as it may, since the respondents 2 and 3 have not chosen to assail the monthly income of the deceased determined by the learned Tribunal by challenging the award, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 now cannot dispute the monthly income of the deceased. Further from the award, it is evident that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased and further instead of applying the multiplier of 15, learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13. Further no compensation has been awarded on account of loss of estate. Since the deceased was 40 years of age, as such, his income was required to be enhanced by 30% and as such, his monthly income would come around to be Rs.10,400/-(30% of 8000=2400/-). Out of Rs. 10,400/-, one-third of the income was required to be excluded on account of personal expenses of the deceased i.e. 1/3x 10400=3466. So the total income which the deceased was contributing to his family would be Rs. 6933.33(round off to 6934/-). After applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency would be Rs. 12,48,120/(6934x12x15).Rs. 15,000/- awarded on account of loss of consortium to appellant No. 1 is required to be enhanced to Rs. 40,000/- and further Rs. 40,000/- each are required to be awarded to appellant Nos. 2 and 3 on account of loss of parental consortium. More so, Rs. 15,000/- is required to be awarded to the appellants on account of loss of estate.

¶28

In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified and the appellants would be entitled to compensation as under:

¶29

¶30

MA No. 326/2010

¶31

i. Loss of dependency: Rs. 12,48,120/ii. Loss of consortium: Rs. 40,000/iii. Loss of parental consortium: Rs. 80,000/iv. Loss of estate: Rs. 15,000/v. Funeral expenses: Rs. 15000/vi. Total: Rs. 13,98,120/-

¶32

The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall deposit the enhanced amount along with interest with the Registry of this Court within a period of two months from today. Upon deposit thereof, the whole amount shall be released in favour of the appellants after their proper identification by their engaged counsel.

¶33

Record of the Tribunal be sent back.

¶34

(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE

¶35

Jammu 01.08.2023 Rakesh

¶36

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

K.B.Jayamma and Ors. v. Virender Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.B.Jayamma and Ors. v. Virender Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atam Singh Vs Union Territory of J and K Th Home Deptt and Ors.

Kuldeep Raj Vs the State Th. Additional Deputy Commissioner (Commissioner Agrarian Reforms)

Mohd.Safeel Vs State Th.Home Deptt.and Ors.

Sabita Abrol and Others ( Lr of Late Sh.Shiv Dass) Vs Rajat Sharma and Ors.

Divisional Manager,Jksfc,Ramban Vs Chuni Lal

Balwan Singh Vs Arjun Singh and Ors.