Partly allowed

Kuldeep Kaur and Ors. v. Guljar Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Sept 2011FAO/1883/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment admits the appeal and condones a 445-day filing delay. The High Court enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs. 7,26,000 to Rs. 3,49,000 by correcting the dependency deduction ratio and multiplying by 14, plus an additional Rs. 25,000 for loss of affection and consortium.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,49,000; appeal partly allowed with modifications; interest of 7.5% per annum awarded.

Kuldeep Kaur and Ors. Vs Guljar Singh and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

FAO No.1883 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.1883 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.9.2011

¶5

Kuldeep Kuar and others

¶6

...Appellant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

Guljar Singh & others

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.Amrinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant(s).

¶12

Mr.Tarsem Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶13

Mr.Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶14

Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for Insurance Company.

¶15

-.-

¶16

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

¶17

CM No.9255 of 2010

¶18

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 445 days in refiling the present appeal is thus condoned.

¶19

Main case

¶20

The claimants/appellants through the present appeal is seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal vide award dated 23.4.2008 on account of death of Jagraj Singh in a motor vehicular accident.

¶21

The facts leading to the present appeal are that on 10.4.2006

¶22

¶23

FAO No.1883 of 2010

¶24

when Jagraj Singh, alongwith his nephew Gurpreet Singh were returning to their village on their motorcycle, they met with an accident with car bearing a no.DL-8CA/4824 (for short the offending vehicle') driven by Gulzar Singh, driver, in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of this, they fell down on the road and received multiple and grievous injuries. Jagraj Singh succumbed to his injuries on the spot. In the claim petition, the claimants/appellants took the stand that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties, awarded a sum of 7,26,000/- to the claimants/appellants.

¶25

Hence, the present appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation amount.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal did not consider the agricultural income of the deceased while assessing the compensation. He further submits that the learned Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 11, whereas it should be 18 keeping in view the age of the deceased. It has also been submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly assessed the dependency as 1/3^rd , whereas it should have been 1/4^th in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77.

¶27

Learned counsel has also submitted that no compensation has been granted by the learned Tribunal under the heads funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased was

¶29

¶30

FAO No.1883 of 2010

¶31

earning any income from agricultural sources. He further submits that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is correct.

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well as the impugned award.

¶33

From the perusal of case file, it emerges that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was about 41 years, which is not disputed. The net annual salary of the deceased was calculated as 1,06,416/-. After making deductions of 1/3<sup>rd</sup> towards his personal and living expenses, it was assessed as 66,000/- approximately. It is also made out that no compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The deceased left behind him six dependents including wife, four children and an old mother.

¶34

As regards deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, it has been observed in Sarla Verma's case, where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, the deductions towards personal expenses should be 1/4^th. In the instant case, the deceased left behind him six dependents and therefore, it would be appropriate to deduct the 1/4^th amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, after making deductions towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the annual dependency comes to `75,000/-

¶35

In the present case, the deceased was in the age group of 41-45. According to norms laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case, the multiplier of 14 would, therefore be applicable. Accordingly, by applying the enhanced multiplier of 14, the enhanced amount works out to 3,24,000/- (10,50,000- `7,26,000).

¶36

FAO No.1883 of 2010

¶37

¶38

As nothing has been granted under the heads of loss of love and affection, consortium and funeral expenses, another sum of 25,000/- is granted towards the same, which would adequately meet the ends of justice. Thus, the total enhanced compensation amount comes to 3,49,000/- which shall be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing the present appeal till it is paid.

¶39

In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed with the modification indicated above.

¶40

22.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mks JUDGE

¶41

Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No

Kuldeep Kaur and Ors. v. Guljar Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Kaur and Ors. v. Guljar Singh and Ors.

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

Ram Kishan & Ors. Vs Rameshwar

Bahal Singh and Ors. Vs Shamsher Singh and Ors.

Garib Dass Vs Ajit Ram

Manisha and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Balbir Singh and Ors. Vs Nitin Andors.

Mohinder Singh & Ors. Vs Blajinder Kaur & Anr.