Partly allowed

Renu and Ors. v. Deepak and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Oct 2011FAO/1950/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court held that the Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 15 for a deceased aged 26. Relying on Sarla Verma, the Court enhanced the multiplier to 17, increasing compensation from 8.10 lakhs to 9.18 lakhs, and allowed the appeal partly.

What did the court decide?

Multiplier enhanced from 15 to 17. Compensation increased by Rs. 1,08,000 to be paid within 45 days with 7.5% interest if delayed.

Renu and Ors. Vs Deepak and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

FAO No.1950 of 2011

¶3

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

¶4

FAO No.1950 of 2011 Date of Decision: October 12, 2010

Renu and others

….Appellant

Versus

Deepak and others

….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

None for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶13

Mr. T.K. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

¶14

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.(ORAL)

¶15

The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier of 15 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.

¶16

From a perusal of the impugned award, it is made out that the deceased was 26 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 taking into account the age of the deceased.

¶17

There is no dispute regarding the age of the deceased. As per post-mortem report, Exhibit P2, the deceased was 26 years of age. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 17 as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in

¶18

-2-

¶19

FAO No.1950 of 2011

¶20

Sarla Verma's case (supra). While dealing with such type of matters, the Court is expected to address to the pleadings and should refrain from introducing any subjectivity.

¶21

In the fact situation, I feel that multiplier of ‘15’ as 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 15 is enhanced to 17. After applying the enhanced multiplier i.e. 17, the compensation comes to 9,18,000/- (4500x12x17). The learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of 8,10,000/-. The enhanced compensation comes to 108000/- ( 9,18,000 - ` 8,10,000/-). 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/realised.

¶22

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

¶23

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶24

12.10.2011 vcgarg

Renu and Ors. v. Deepak and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu and Ors. v. Deepak 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

Ranjeet Kaur and Ors. Vs Baljeet Singh and Ors.

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

Devender Kumar Vs Rohtash & Ors.