Partly allowed

Ranjeet Kaur and Ors. v. Baljeet Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Oct 2011FAO/1949/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the applicability of a multiplier of 13 in a motor accident compensation case. The Court held that given the deceased's age of 35, the multiplier should be 15. The award was enhanced from ` 5,46,000 to ` 6,30,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 5,46,000 to Rs. 6,30,000; payment due within 45 days with 7.5% interest if delayed.

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

¶1

FAO No.1949 of 2011

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

FAO No.1949 of 2011 Date of Decision: October 12, 2010

¶5

Ranjeet Kaur and others

¶6

….Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Baljeet Singh and others

¶9

….Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.(ORAL)

¶13

The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier of 13 applied by the learned Tribunal is against the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77.

¶14

From the perusal of the impugned award, it is made out that the deceased was of 35 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 on the ground of age of the person elder between the deceased and the dependents. The age of the dependents are between 9 to 59 years.

¶15

There is no dispute regarding the age of the deceased. As per post-mortem report, Exhibit P3, the deceased was of 35 years. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 15, as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla

¶16

FAO No.1949 of 2011

¶17

¶18

Verma's case (supra). While adjudicating the matter, the Court is expected to address to the pleadings and should refrain from introducing any subjectivity.

¶19

In the fact situation, I feel that multiplier of ‘13’ applied by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra), the multiplier of 13 is enhanced to 15. After applying the enhanced multiplier i.e. 15, the compensation comes to 6,30,000/- (3500x12x15). The learned Tribunal awarded the compensation of 5,46,000/-. The enhanced compensation comes to 84000/- ( 6,30,000 - ` 5,46,000/-). The same shall be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the enhanced payment is not paid within the stipulated period, the same shall carry interest @7.5 percent from the filing of the present appeal till it is paid. .

¶20

In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above.

¶21

12.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) vcgarg JUDGE

Ranjeet Kaur and Ors. v. Baljeet Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Kaur and Ors. v. Baljeet 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 Kumar Vs Hemo Prabha Saikia and Ors.

Babita Vs Chander Pal Sharma

Aarti Narula Vs Sanjay Kumar Narula

Renu and Ors. Vs Deepak and Ors.

Amar Devi and Anr. Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Devender Kumar Vs Rohtash & Ors.