Partly allowed

Veena Rani and Ors. v. Pawandeep and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Oct 2011FAO/2035/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral judgment deals with an appeal against an award of compensation for a fatal accident. The court modified the effect of the impugned award by recalculating the compensation based on the correct deduction of personal expenses for four dependents and granting additional loss of estate amount.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 66,898/- plus Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate to be paid within 45 days.

Veena Rani and Ors. Vs Pawandeep and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

FAO No. 2035 of 2010 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO No. 2035 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.10.2011

¶4

Veena Rani and others

....Appellants

Versus

Pawandeep and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶10

Present: Mr.Sanjiv Patiyal, Advocate for Mr.Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellants

¶11

Mr.RN Singhal, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶12

¶13

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶14

Application for condonation of delay

¶15

For the reasons enumerated in the applications, delay of 21 days in refiling and 181 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

¶16

Applications stand disposed of accordingly.

¶17

Application for impleadment

¶18

This is an application for deleting the name of appellant No.2 Richa Gupta from the array of parties since she has died.

¶19

The application is being supported by affidavit of the mother of the deceased.

¶20

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

¶21

FAO No. 2035 of 2010 (O&M) 2

¶22

allowed. The name of appellant No.2 is ordered to be deleted from the array of parties.

¶23

Registry is directed to make the necessary correction in the memo of parties.

¶24

FAO No. 2035 of 2010

¶25

The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation to the appellants as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Smt. Sarla Verma

¶26

and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR

¶27

(Civil) 77 .

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶29

case file.

¶30

From the perusal of the case file, it is revealed that in the accident that occurred on 26.10.2005, Rajinder Nath suffered multiple and grievous injuries. He remained admitted from 26.10.2005 to 4.11.2005, on which date, he succumbed to the injuries. The learned Tribunal considered the annual income of the deceased as 61,755/- p.a. , made deduction of 1/3<sup>rd</sup> towards the personal expenses of the deceased and taking his age as 48 years at the time of death, applied multiplier of 13. As such, the learned Tribunal assessed the total compensation to the tune of 5,35,210/-. The learned Tribunal granted 10,000/- towards last rites and 15,000/towards loss of consortium. However, as per the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case , if the number of dependents are four, the deduction 1/4^th towards personal expenses should be made. In the instant case, the number of the dependents are four. Therefore, the deduction towards

¶31

FAO No. 2035 of 2010 (O&M) 3

¶32

personal expenses is reduced from 1/3^rd to 1/4^th . As such, after making deduction of 1/4^th towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution of the deceased towards the family comes to 46316/- per annum. The multiplier of 13 applied by the learned Tribunal is adequate. In this way the total compensation comes to 6,02,108/-.

¶33

The deceased was the only bread earner in the family. Therefore, his death was a shock to the family. This Court feels that if an amount of ` 15,000/- more is granted towards loss of estate, the same would meet the ends of justice. I order accordingly.

¶34

Accordingly, the enhanced compensation i.e. 66,898/(6,02,108-5,35,210) + 15,000/- shall be paid to the claimants/appellants in the manner indicated in the impugned award within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the appeal, till its realisation.

¶35

The instant appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the above extent.

¶36

20.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE

Veena Rani and Ors. v. Pawandeep and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veena Rani and Ors. v. Pawandeep 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

Krishna Wanti Vs Punjab State Electricity Board Now Pspc Ltd. & or.

Karan Singh Vs Vijay Arora and Ors.

Sangeeta Vs Sharvan Kumar

Anil Vs Subhash and Ors.

Usha Devi and Ors. Vs Subhash and Ors.

Mona Rani Vs Munish Kumar