Partly allowed

(O&M) Vidya Jaiswal and Anr. v. Avtar Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jan 2012FAO/1399/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court enhanced motor accident compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It adjusted the deceased's notional income, applied a 50% dependency factor and a multiplier of 9 under judicial principles, and awarded an additional sum for conventional heads of loss to meet ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 87,500 with Rs. 45,500 balance payable by respondents within 45 days at 7.5% p.a. interest.

(O&M) Vidya Jaiswal and Anr. Vs Avtar Singh… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.1399 of 1995

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.1399 of 1995 Date of decision:16.1.2012

¶5

Vidya Jaiswal and another

¶6

....Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Avtar Singh and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: None for the appellants

¶12

Mr.Kunal Garg, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana

¶13

¶14

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide Award dated 10.1.1993, on account of death of Anubhav Jaiswal, in a motor vehicular accident on 18.10.1989.

¶16

It has been averred in the grounds of appeal that the deceased was a student of 2^nd Years of Polytechnic. The learned Tribunal assessed his income as `350/- per month and applied the multiplier of 10, which is on the lower side.

¶17

None has caused appearance on behalf of the appellants for the

¶18

FAO No.1399 of 1995 2

¶19

last five consecutive dates. In this situation, this Court has no option but to decide the matter on merit.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has contended that there is no scope for any further enhancement of compensation as already sufficient amount has been awarded.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent-State and rescanned the entire record.

¶22

The claimants are the parents of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was a student of 2^nd year in Polytechnic. He was unmarried boy of 19 years at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal assessed his income as 4200/- per annum (average 350/- per month). Regarding future prospects and marriage prospects nothing has been awarded. The income of the deceased should have been taken as notional for determining the compensation as prescribed in the Schedule of the Act. Accordingly, the notional income of the deceased is taken to be `15,000/- per annum. Claimants being the parents of the deceased, 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 dependency of 50% should have been taken and the multiplier of 9 should have been applied, as per the age of the claimants. Ordered accordingly.

¶23

The untimely death of the young son was a great shock to his parents. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection, last rites and funeral expenses etc. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court grants `20,000/- towards all these heads, which would meet the ends of justice.

¶24

FAO No.1399 of 1995 3

¶25

Accordingly, the total compensation comes to 87,500/(15,000 (annual income) x 1/2 (dependency) x 9 + 20,000 (conventional heads). The balance enhanced amount i.e.45,500/-( 87,500 – 42,000 (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, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the present appeal, till its realisation.

¶26

The present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the above extent.

¶27

16.01.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE

(O&M) Vidya Jaiswal and Anr. v. Avtar Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Vidya Jaiswal and Anr. v. Avtar Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Shanti Kaur and Others

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamal & Ors.

Sunita Saini Vs Laxman Saini

Ashok Kumar Vs Satbir Singh and Another

Anita Rani and Others Vs Dharam Pal and Others

Smt/ Krishana Devi and Ors. Vs Sh. Darshan Singh and Ors.