Partly allowed

Geeta Devi & Ors. v. Rihyasah Khan & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jan 2012FAO/1216/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Single Judge enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of a skilled labourer. The Court increased the deceased's monthly income based on the Minimum Wages Act notification and enhanced awards for loss of estate and funeral expenses, granting an additional amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is partly allowed; the Tribunal's award is modified by enhancing compensation to Rs. 6,36,700/-; the balance enhanced amount of Rs. 69,700/- is to be paid within 45 days with interest at 7.

Geeta Devi & Ors. Vs Rihyasah Khan & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

FAO No.1216 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.1216 of 2011 (O&M) (in MVA No.107 of 2008) Date of decision:24.1.2012

¶5

Geeta Devi and others

¶6

....Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Rihayash Khan and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

Mr.Tejinder K.Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr.Randeep Singh Dhull, Advocate for respondent No.5.

¶13

Mr.Subhash Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.6.

¶14

¶15

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶16

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount, awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide Award dated 31.3.2012, on account of death of Rajbir, in a motor vehicular accident on 28.12.2007.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased had been working as Packer with M/s Kannons India Limited and was getting a salary of `6000/- per month. He was 28 years old at the time of

¶18

FAO No.1216 of 2011 (O&M) 2

¶19

accidental death. The learned Tribunal while determining the compensation has wrongly assessed his income at `3510/- per month. He further contends that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side.

¶20

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and appropriate. Therefore, there is no scope any further enhancement.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

¶22

Admittedly, the death of Rajbir occurred in an accident on 28.12.2007. The deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident. From the record, it is amply proved that the deceased had been working as Packer with Kannons India Ltd.. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that he was a skilled labourer. In view of the Notification dated 27.6.2007, issued by the Labour Department, Haryana Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the minimum wages of a skill worker were prescribed at 39,00/- per month. Accordingly, this Court feels that the income of the deceased deserves to be increased from 3510/- per month to `39,00/- per month as provided under the said Notification. There being four dependents i.e. wife, two children and mother, the dependency has rightly been assessed at 3/4^th . The multiplier of 17 is also rightly applied, keeping in view the age of the deceased at the time of accident.

¶23

The untimely death of Rakesh was a great shock to his family. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the

¶24

FAO No.1216 of 2011 (O&M) 3

¶25

amount awarded under the loss of estate is enhanced from 5000/- to 10,000/-, and funeral expenses and transportation charges from 5000/- to 10,000/-, which would meet the ends of justice.

¶26

Accordingly, the total compensation comes to 6,36,700/(39,00 (monthly income) x 3/4<sup>th</sup> (dependency) x 12 x 17 (multiplier) + 40,000 (10000 + 30000 already awarded under the conventional heads). The balance enhanced amount i.e. 69,700/- (6,36,700 - 5,67,000/- already awarded by the learned Tribunal) shall be paid to the appellants, in the manner indicated in the impugned Award, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal, till its realisation.

¶27

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

¶28

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶29

24.01.2012 gsv

Geeta Devi & Ors. v. Rihyasah Khan & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Devi & Ors. v. Rihyasah Khan & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Usha Rani and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajpal & Anr. Vs Biram Wati & Ors.

Babita Vs Nareen Kumar

Icici Lombard Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Pawan Singh & Ors.

Rita & Another Vs Rihayash Khan & Others

Mandeep Kaur Vs Parvinder Singh