Allowed

Santosh Kumari v. Ayub & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Mar 2010FAO/1032/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals filed against Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awards seeking enhancement of compensation for deceased in road accidents. Court enhanced compensation assessments based on salary, dependency, age, and applicable multipliers, directing additional payments for funeral, consortium, and estate losses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,96,600 for the first appellant and Rs. 1,00,000 for the second appeal, with specific additional receipts for funeral, consortium, and estate.

Santosh Kumari Vs Ayub & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

FAO No. 1032 of 1988 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of decision: March 17,2010

¶4

(1) F.A.O. No. 1032 of 1988 (O&M)

Santosh Kumari

.. Appellant

Ayub and others

..Respondents

(2) F.A.O. No. 1033 of 1988 (O&M)

¶11

Rameshwar Dayal and another

.. Appellants

Ayub and others

..Respondents

(3) F.A.O. No. 1034 of 1988 (O&M)

¶17

Rameshwar Dayal and another

.. Appellants v.

Ayub and others

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶22

Present: Mr. J. L. Malhotra, Advocate for the appellants.

¶23

Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the Insurance Company.

¶24

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶25

This order shall dispose of the above mentioned three appeals, as the same arise out of a common award, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, `the Tribunal').

¶26

FAO No. 1032 and 1033 of 1988 have been filed by the widow and

¶27

FAO No. 1032 of 1988 [2]

¶28

parents of deceased-Vishwa Nath, whereas FAO No. 1034 of 1988 has been filed by the parents of deceased-Birender Singh, seeking enhancement of compensation on account of their death.

¶29

Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 25.4.1987, Vishwa Nath Rohilla along with his brother Birender Singh was coming towards Sohana on his scooter. When they reached near Jain Stone Crusher, Sohana, truck bearing No. HYG-1451 came from behind at a fast speed and struck against the scooter. As a result of the accident, Vishwa Nath and his brother Birender Singh received injuries and ultimately died. In the claim petitions filed by the widow and parents of deceased- Vishwa Nath, they were granted Rs. 96,000/- as compensation and in the claim petition filed on account of the death of Birender Singh, his parents were awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/-. It is against this award, that the appellants are before this Court seeking further enhancement.

¶30

FAO Nos. 1032 and 1033 of 1988

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the material placed on record by the claimants in the form of salary of deceased-Vishwa Nath, who was a diploma holder and serving in Indian Navy Dockyard. His carry home salary was Rs. 1,821/- per month. He died at the young age of 25 years leaving behind his widow and old parents. The learned Tribunal merely assessed the dependency at Rs. 500/per month and applied a multiplier of 16, whereas the dependency should be at least 2/3^rd , considering the number of persons left behind by the deceased and multiplier of 18 also needs to be applied. He further submitted that nothing was granted on account of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that sufficient amount of compensation has already been awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimants and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. It was stated by the widow of the deceased in her cross-examination that the deceased used to pay her Rs. 500/- per month. The Tribunal has generously accepted the same statement and assessed the compensation accordingly and, therefore, there is no question of grant of any further amount. The multiplier applied by the Tribunal is also reasonable. It was further submitted that admittedly the deceased was serving in Indian Navy Dockyard and was maintaining a separate mess. Under the circumstances, the dependency, as assessed by the learned Tribunal, cannot be faulted with.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

¶34

As far as compensation on account of the death of Vishwa Nath is

¶35

FAO No. 1032 of 1988 [3]

¶36

concerned, where the claimants are his widow and parents, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has totally lost sight of the settled principles for determination of compensation in the death cases, especially of young persons, where the claimants are widow as well as the parents. The deceased in the present case was 25 years of age. He left behind his widow, who was younger to him and also the parents, who were 45 years of age. His salary certificate produced on record established that the same was Rs. 1,821/- per month. Merely because the widow stated in her crossexamination that when she used to live with her parents, during the time the deceased was on duty, she was paid Rs. 500/- per month, does not mean that it was this amount only which he was contributing to the family. It is a case in which two brothers, one married and one younger unmarried, had expired in an accident. Even if deceased-Vishw Nath was maintaining a separate mess, still it cannot be considered that his contribution to the family was merely Rs. 500/- per month and the same in any case, cannot be assessed less than 50% of his salary, which will come out to Rs. 910/- per month, i.e., Rs. 10,920/- per annum. It has opined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 that where the deceased is aged between 21 and 25 years, multiplier of 18 should be applied. As in the present case, the deceased was 25 years of age, applying the multiplier of 18, the amount comes to Rs. 1,96,560/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 1,96,600/-. Out of the total amount of compensation, as assessed, a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- shall be paid to the widow and Rs. 36,600/- shall be paid to the parents. In addition to the aforesaid amount, Santosh Kumari, widow of the deceased, shall also be entitled to Rs. 3,000/- on account of funeral expenses; Rs. 6,000/- each on account of loss of estate and consortium. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petitions till its payment.

¶37

FAO No. 1034 of 1988

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the son of the appellants, aged 21 years, who was quite educated and was doing his own work, expired in a road accident along with his elder brother. He had a bright future ahead. His income was Rs. 1,500/- per month, but without there being any basis, the learned Tribunal reduced the same to Rs. 1,000/- per month and not only that, even the dependency was assessed at only Rs. 200/- per month, which should be at least 2/3^rd of the income of the deceased, considering that the parents were dependent upon him. The multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal also deserves to be increased and further the learned Tribunal has not granted anything on account of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate.

¶39

FAO No. 1032 of 1988 [4]

¶40

¶41

Deceased-Birender Singh, aged 21 years, was bachelor at the time of accident. He had passed Stock Assistant Course conducted by Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar and was practising privately as Veternary Assistant. The parents, who are claimants, were aged 45 years. His income was assessed at Rs. 1,000/- per month. Though learned counsel for the claimants claimed the same to be Rs. 1,500/- per month. The error which was committed by the learned Tribunal is in determining the dependency, which was taken merely at Rs. 200/- per month and in applying multiplier of 16. Lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/- awarded as compensation, in my opinion, is quite on lower side. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that where even the parents are the claimants, the dependency should be about 50% and not as assessed by the learned Tribunal at merely 20%. Even if it is taken that the deceased could have married in future, but it also cannot be lost sight of the fact that his income would have also increased. It is an unfortunate case where two young brothers had died in an accident. Money is merely consolation for the parents.

¶42

Considering the facts of the present case, in my opinion, 50% would be the reasonable amount of dependency. Taking the same at Rs. 500/- per month, i.e., Rs.6,000/- per annum, and applying a multiplier of 14, the amount of compensation would come out to Rs. 84,000/-. Adding Rs. 4,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs. 12,000/- on account of loss of estate and consortium, the total amount of compensation is assessed at Rs. 1,00,000/-, which shall be shared by the parents in the ratio of 50:50. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its payment.

¶43

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

¶44

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

¶45

March 17,2010 mk

Santosh Kumari v. Ayub & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumari v. Ayub & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahinder Pal and Ors. Vs Hari Saran and Ors.

Nirmal Singh Vs Gurmukh Singh & Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Ratna etc.

Madan Lal Vs Jaspal and Ors.

Rameshwar Dayal Vs Ayub & Ors.

Rameshwar Dayal & Anr. Vs Ayub & Ors.