Allowed

Patasho Devi and Others v. Bakshish Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jan 2009FAO/2318/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in calculating compensation based on un-revised salary. The award was modified to be computed on the revised pay scale of Rs.4500 per month effective from the date of revise.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award of the MACT was modified to calculate compensation based on the revised pay scale of Rs.4500 per month.

Patasho Devi and Others Vs Bakshish Singh and… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

FAO NO. 2318 of 2001 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CANDIGARH

¶3

Date of Decision: 14.1.2009

¶4

Patasho Devi and others

¶5

.......Appellants.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Bakshish Singh and others

¶8

.......Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.

¶10

Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pandit,Advocate, for the appellants.

¶11

Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for Oriental Insurance Compay – respondent No.3. ***

¶12

Daya Chaudhary, J.

¶13

The present appeal has been filed by claimants-widow and two minor children of Satbir Singh deceased against judgment of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, dated 13.3.1999, whereby the Tribunal has partially accepted the claim of the appellants and granted Rs.3,24,000/- as compensation.

¶14

The case of the appellants is that Satbir Singh died due to the injuries received in a motor vehicular accident on 21.6.1996. He was working as mali-cum-chowkidar and his monthly salary was Rs.4500/- per month in terms of revised pay scale. The Tribunal has passed the award on the basis of un-revised salary i.e. Rs.2597/-, whereas his revised salary was Rs.4500/- per month.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has

¶16

FAO NO. 2318 of 2001 [2]

¶17

applied the multiplier of 15 whereas the average life expectancy is 77 years and a multiplier of 24 should have been applied. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Dixit Vs. Balwant Yadav Punjab Law Reporter Vol.CXIII (1996-2) 656 and a judgment of this Court in Chander Devi vs. Haryana State 2006(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 806 in support of his contention.

¶18

Mr.Pardeep Goyal, learned counsel for Oriental Insurance Company-respondent No.3, argued that the Tribunal has correctly awarded a sum of Rs.3,24,000/- keeping in view the actual salary which the deceased was getting at the time of death and a multiplier of 15 was rightly applied.

¶19

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the record on the file and the impugned award.

¶20

The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that the pay-scales of the deceased were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996. In support of this fact, Shri Amar Nath, Clerk, of the office of Sub Divisional Education Office, Panchkula, who appeared as PW-3, has specifically deposed that increased salary of deceased Satbir Singh was Rs.4500/- per month in the revised pay scale. The appointment letter of the deceased was also proved by this witness as Ex.PB. The deceased expired on 21.6.1996. His age at the time of death was 32 years. Tribunal has awarded compensation on the basis of un-revised pay scale and has ignored the fact that the pay-scales of the employees were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and Satbir Singh expired after revision of the pay scales i.e. on 21.6.1996. Had the deceased been alive, he would have got the arrears w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and would be getting revised salary in future.

¶21

In view of the facts mentioned above, the award of MACT,

¶22

FAO NO. 2318 of 2001 [3]

¶23

Chanidgarh is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to the compensation on the basis of revised pay scales of Rs.4500/- per month.

¶24

The multiplier and dependency would remain the same.

¶25

The appeal is allowed with above modification. If any amount

¶26

has already been paid to the claimants, that would be adjusted towards the awarded amount. There will be no order as to costs.

¶27

(Daya Chaudhary) Judge

¶28

January 14 , 2009.

¶29

raghav

Patasho Devi and Others v. Bakshish Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patasho Devi and Others v. Bakshish Singh and Others

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

Bikramjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs State of Pb. etc.

Kartar Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajinder Vs Karambir Singh and Ors.

Labh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ritu Bala and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.