Allowed

Karamjit Kaur and Another v. Surinder Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jan 2011FAO/645/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge enhanced the compensation awarded under the Motor Accidents Claims Act for the death of a cyclist run over by a truck. The court increased the award from Rs. 1,53,600 to Rs. 2,50,000, accounting for future income prospects and various dependency and conventional losses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,50,000, payable by the insurance company with 6% interest from the date of petition.

Karamjit Kaur and Another Vs Surinder Singh and Others — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

FAO No.645 of 1992

¶2

-1-

¶3

FAO No.645 of 1992

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: January 24, 2011

¶6

KARAMJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SURINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

¶9

...RESPONDENTS

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN.

¶11

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. No

¶12

To be referred to the reporters or not? No

¶13

Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes

¶14

PRESENT: NONE FOR THE APPELLANTS.

¶15

MR. S.S. SALLAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶16

NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 4.

¶17

MR. TEJINDERPAL SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3.

¶18

K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL)

¶19

The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a 30 years old person who was a cyclist and run over by the truck before hitting against the tree. It appears that three other passengers in the truck had also died in the same accident. As far as the cyclist was concerned, the accident answers the res ipsa loquitur situation. The only issue would be whether the compensation awarded was adequate or not.

¶20

The deceased was working in the Punjab Marketing Board, securing employment that provided an income of `1114/-. Having regard to the nature of employment in a statutorily constituted Board with a prospect of increase in income I would provide for a 50% increase in the salary and

¶21

FAO No.645 of 1992

¶22

-2-

¶23

take the average income to be 1671/-. I would provide for a deduction of 1/3<sup>rd</sup> for personal expenses and take the monthly dependency at 1114/- and adopt a multiplier of 17 to find the loss of dependency at 2,27,256/-. I would add further sums towards the conventional heads of claim for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection for the children and loss to estate and funeral expenses to round the figure at 2,50,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded `1,53,600/- and the amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall draw interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The amount of increase shall be distributed equally between the wife and the daughter. The liability shall be on the insurance company as found by the Tribunal.

¶24

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

¶25

January 24, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE

Karamjit Kaur and Another v. Surinder Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karamjit Kaur and Another v. Surinder Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishan Kumar Vs Balbir Singh & Ors.

Randhir Singh & Anr. Vs Iqbal Singh

Subhash Chand Vs Kamla

Deepanjali Vs Yogesh Arora

Satvinder Singh & Ors. Vs Surinder Kumar

(O&M) United India Ins. Co. Ltd., Gurgaon Vs Pushpa Devi and Ors.