Partly allowed

(O&M) New India Ass.Co.Ltd. v. Anand Arkash Ahuja etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Aug 2010FAO/2338/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim for death was excessive based on error in calculating dependency percentage. The court modified the award to Rs.3,50,000/-, partly allowing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The liability arising out of the accident was restricted to Rs.3,50,000/-; the Tribunal's award was modified accordingly, and the appeal was allowed to this extent.

(O&M) New India Ass.Co.Ltd. Vs Anand Arkash Ahuja etc. — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

FAO No.2338 of 2005

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.2338 of 2005 Date of Decision. 10.08.2010

¶5

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., having its Regional Office at SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through Sh. Labh Singh, Admn. Officer, duly constituted attorney

¶6

......Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Anand Parkash Ahuja son of Sh. Thakur Dass and others

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

None for the respondents.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

¶17

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

¶18

The insurance company is on appeal, having taken permission to defend on all grounds under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act that the compensation awarded is excessive and against the established principles of law. In this case, the deceased was 22 years of age and the claimants were the parents. The Tribunal accepted the plea that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and provided for an extent of dependency to the tune of Rs.24,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 17. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that in case of a bachelor there is a prospect of marriage in future and the possibility of reduction of contribution. The personal expenses, therefore, must have been

¶19

-2-

¶20

FAO No.2338 of 2005

¶21

provided at 50% and not at 33% in the manner it was done by the Tribunal. The contention is in tune with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009(6) SCC 121. If the amount were to be reworked providing for 50% deduction, the amount of compensation would have to be arrived at Rs.3,06,000/-. If the conventional heads of claim were also to be added such as the loss to estate, funeral expenses and loss of love and affection with the parents, the amount would be in the range of Rs.3,25,000/-. At the stage of admission of the appeal and serving notice, a bench of this Hon'ble Court has directed the apyment of Rs.3,50,000/- and stayed the amount in excess. I do not want to reduce the amount anything less than what the Court has already provided for, having regard to the fact that there is a minimal difference between the assessment which I have now worked out and what the Bench has already made possible for the claimants to obtain through interim direction.

¶22

The award of the Tribunal is modified and the liability arising out of accident shall stand restricted to Rs.3,50,000/-. The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent.

¶23

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶24

August 10, 2010 Pankaj*

(O&M) New India Ass.Co.Ltd. v. Anand Arkash Ahuja etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) New India Ass.Co.Ltd. v. Anand Arkash Ahuja etc.

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

Sham Sunder Vs Sohan Lal

Surinder Singh etc. Vs Narinder Singh

New India Ass.Co.Ltd. Vs Raj Bala & Ors.

(O&M) United India Ins. Vs Daya Nand and Ors.

(O&M) National Insurance Co. Vs Balwinder Kaur and Ors.

National Insurance Co. and Anr. Vs Amardeep Kaur and Ors.