Partly allowed

Saroj Devi v. Surender Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Dec 2011FAO/4928/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award for the death of her daughter. The Court increased the compensation by applying a multiplier of 14 instead of 12 as per Supreme Court law and enhanced amounts for last rites and loss of affection.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of ₹70,000 granted for additional dependency, last rites, and loss of affection, payable within 45 days with interest.

Saroj Devi Vs Surender Singh and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

FAO No.4928 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.4928 of 2010 (O&M) (in MACT No.113 of 2007) Date of decision: 23.12.2011

Smt.Saroj Devi

....Appellant

Versus

Surender Singh and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: None for the appellant.

¶12

Mr.Ravinder Arora and Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocates for respondent-Insurance Company

¶13

¶14

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶15

CM Nos.21246-47-CII of 2010

¶16

Despite notice, reply has not been filed by the respondents.

¶17

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, delay

¶18

of 16 days in refiling and 11 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶19

Applications stand disposed of.

¶20

FAO No.4928 of 2010

¶21

By filing the present appeal, the claimant/ appellant has sought enhancement of compensation amount awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, vide award dated 30.10.2009, on account of

¶22

FAO No.4928 of 2010 (O&M)

¶23

¶24

death of Seema, daughter of the appellant, in a motor vehicular accident on 26.5.2007.

¶25

The brief facts of the present case are that on 26.5.2007, Vikas, Raje Ram, Satbir and some other persons were going from Adampur Dhadi towards Narnaul in a Maxi Cab bearing registration No.HR-66 2210, being driven by Bir Singh driver. Near Akoda Police Post, a Tata 407 bearing registration No.HR99 AE (temporary) 7079, coming from Mahendergarh side, hit the said Maxi Cab, in which the passengers sitting in it namely Vikas, Satbir, Raje Ram Seema, Shashi, Rajender had died at the spot and Reena and Saroj suffered injuries. They were rushed to Community Health Centre, Mahendergarh. Separate claim petitions were filed. The learned Tribunal decided all the claim petitions vide a common award dated 30.10.2009. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the claimant filed the present appeal.

¶26

The grounds of enhancement pleaded in the appeal are that the deceased was 16½ years of age and was a student of B.A.1^st Year. The mother of the deceased was 40 years at the time of accident. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 , the multiplier of 14 instead of 12 ought to have been applied. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of 1,44,000/- towards loss of dependency and 5000/- towards transportation and last rite, which is inadequate. No amount has been awarded towards loss of future income; and love and affection.

¶27

¶28

FAO No.4928 of 2010 (O&M)

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentInsurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the amount of compensation.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the case file as well as the grounds of appeal.

¶31

From the perusal of the record, it emerges that the claimant lost her husband, son and daughters in a motor vehicular accident. In other connected MACT No. 112 of 2007, filed on account of death of her son Vikas, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 14, as the claimant was 40 years of age. In the present appeal, arising out of MACT No.113 of 2007, filed by the claimant on account of death of her daughter Seema, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the multiplier applied is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and in view of the taken by the learned Tribunal in the connected claim petitions. Thus, the same is inadequate. Therefore, the multiplier of 14 should have been applied. Ordered accordingly. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as 1000/- per month i.e. 12000/- per annum. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to `1,68,000/-, on account of loss of dependency.

¶32

The untimely death of Seema was a great shock to her family. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of 5000/- towards transportation of dead body and last rites, which is inadequate. The Tribunal did not award any compensation towards love and affection. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that grant of 20,000/- in all

¶33

FAO No.4928 of 2010 (O&M)

¶34

¶35

towards last rites and transportation (5000 already granted + 15000 more) and `30,000/- towards loss of love and affection, would meet the ends of justice. Ordered accordingly.

¶36

Accordingly, the enhanced amount i.e. 69,000/- (rounded off as 70,000/-) , shall be paid to the appellant, in the manner indicated in the impugned award, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the present appeal, till its realisation.

¶37

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

¶38

modification indicated above.

¶39

23.12.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE

Saroj Devi v. Surender Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Devi v. Surender 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

M/S Wood Tech Vs Haryana Financial Corporation

Sheo Chand and Ors. Vs Raj Kumar and Ors.

M/S Garg Brothers and Ors. Vs Labh Singh and Ors.

Gurbachan Singh Vs Balbir Singh and Others

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Raj Kumar and Ors.

Saroj Devi Vs Surender Singh and Ors.