Partly allowed

Santosh Verma v. Ram Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Oct 2006FAO/717/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This First Appeal by the appellants sought enhancement of compensation for a death case. The court assessed the deceased's income at Rs. 4000/month, maintained the multiplier of 12, and ordered a deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses due to minor children's medical needs, enhancing total compensation to Rs. 4,34,000.

What did the court decide?

The First Appeal allowed in part. Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,34,000 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of application.

Santosh Verma Vs Ram Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2006)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

FAO No.717 of 1996 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision: 11.10.2006

¶4

Smt Santosh Verma and others Vs. Ram Kanwar and others

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH

¶6

Present: Mr. O.P.Goel, Sr. Advocate with Ms Mamta Bhatti, Advocate, for the appellants

¶7

Mr. S.K.Monga, Deputy Advocate General (Haryana) for respondent No.2.

¶8

UMA NATH SINGH, J.

¶9

This F.A.O. by the claimants for enhancement of compensation amount arises out of an award dated 12.9.1995 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, in Claim petition No. 74 of 1994, awarding a sum of Rs. 3 lacs with 12% interest per annum in death case of a 45 years old industrialist. It appears that the accident took place on 26.6.1994 at about 9.30 a.m. when the deceased had left Sanjeevan Research Laboratory, for collecting money. Having done the job, he was returning home and was present at place known as Bus stop, Barmalik (Malikpur). The offending vehicle being a Haryana Roadways bus (HYS7383) came from Delhi side and crushed the deceased to death due to rash and negligent driving.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was an income-tax assesee. His two income tax returns for the year 199394 and 1994-95 (Ex.P.8 and P.9) disclosed that his earning was around Rs. 50,000/- per annum. On the basis of these income tax returns, learned counsel submitted that the deceased was earning around Rs. 4500/-. Smt.

¶11

FAO No.717 of 1996 (O&M)

¶12

-2-

¶13

Santosh (PW.1), widow of the deceased and one of the claimants, in her cross-examination while answering a suggestion given by the respondentState has answered as “ It is wrong to suggest that he was having no income” more than 4000/-”. Thus the income of the deceased appears to be Rs. 4000/-. The claimants include the aged parents, widow of 41 years and two minor children being a daughter of 15 and a son of 11 years. Learned counsel also urged that the minor daughter has suffered a paralytic attack causing 70 per cent permanent disability and the son is a heart patient who has been advised an operation to install a pacemaker. Leaned counsel, thus, submitted that the deduction of 1/3^rd towards personal expenses is also on higher side. The deceased was aged 45 years but a lower multiplier of 12 has been applied.

¶14

On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the income tax returns for two years would not form the basis to assess the earning and it was for the appellant to prove the income of the appellant beyond 3,000/-.

¶15

On due consideration of rival submissions, I am of the view that the impugned award needs to be interfered. The income tax returns can not be said to be unreasonable and excessive for the income shown therein is around Rs. 4000/- when the deceased was running a plastic manufacturing for the past 20 years duly registered with the Commercial Tax Department. Thus, I am of the view that the income of the deceased can be safely assessed at Rs. 4000/- per month. As regards the use of multiplier of 12, I am not inclined to interfere in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 236 ( T.N State Transport Corporation Ltd . v. S. Rajapriya and other s). However,

¶16

FAO No.717 of 1996 (O&M)

¶17

-3-

¶18

looking to the fact that both the children being minors, require proper medical care, I deem it expedient in the interest of justice to deduct 1/4^th of the total income towards personal expenses. As such, after deduction of 1/4^th from the monthly income of Rs. 4000/-, the monthly dependency would come to Rs.3,000/- which on being multiplied by 12 would come to Rs. 36,000/- as annual dependency. As the tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12, the total dependency would come to Rs.4,32,000/-. Further, it appears that the claimants have not been awarded any amount towards the loss of estate. Accordingly, on that count, an amount of Rs. 2000/- is awarded. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 4,34,000/-. The enhanced amount of R. 1,34,000/- shall carry an interest @ 6 per cent p.a. From the date of application. . Thus, the FAO is allowed in part.

¶19

October 11, 2006 ( UMA NATH SINGH ) dsg JUDGE

¶20

Whether refer to Reporter: Yes / No

Santosh Verma v. Ram Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Verma v. Ram Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Singh and Ors. Vs Soma Singh and Ors.

Sheilly Arora Vs Ajnandan Singh and Ors.

Parsin Kaur and Ors. Vs Jarnail Singh and Ors.

Nand Ram Vs Amar Singh

Uttam Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs Gurmeet Singh and Ors.

Union of India Vs Dilbag Singh etc.