Partly allowed

Anita Rani and Others v. Dharam Pal and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jan 2012FAO/1429/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Motor Accident Claims Act, the High Court enhanced compensation for the death of Ram Bilas. Relied on Smt. Sarla Verma to raise the multiplier from 16 to 17 and increase dependency from 1/4 to 3/4 due to four oral dependents. Additionally, incurred a sum of Rs. 20,000 for conventional heads.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed in part. Impugned award modified to pay total compensation of Rs. 2,95,400.

Anita Rani and Others Vs Dharam Pal and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.1429 of 1995

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.1429 of 1995 Date of decision:16.1.2012

¶5

Anita Rani and others

¶6

....Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Dharam Paul and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants

¶12

Mr.Kunal Garg, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for respondent Nos. 2 and 3

¶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, Sonepat (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide Award dated 13.2.1995, on account of death of Ram Bilas in a motor vehicular accident on 11.8.1992.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the dependency while determining the compensation. There are four dependents i.e. widow, two minors, the then, and mother. He further contends that the multiplier of 16 applied by the learned Tribunal should have been 17, as the deceased was 30 years of

¶17

FAO No.1429 of 1995 2

¶18

age at the time of accident. Furthermore, no amount has been awarded towards funeral expenses, last rite,consortium etc.

¶19

On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and appropriate.

¶20

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

¶21

Admittedly, the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Dharam Paul, in which Ram Bilas, husband of appellant No.1 has died. As per Ex.P4, Postmortem Report, the age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of accident. Thus, 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 16 applied by the learned Tribunal deserved to be enhanced to 17. Ordered accordingly. The fact of there being four dependents i.e. widow, two minor daughters, the then, and mother, in view of Smt.Sarla Verma's case (supra) , the dependency of 3/4^th should have been taken. Ordered accordingly. The deceased was a shopkeeper. The learned Tribunal has rightly assessed his monthly income as `18,00/-, which was prevalent at that time.

¶22

From perusal of the impugned Award, no amount was awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of conventional heads. The untimely death of the deceased was a great shock to his family. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court grants a sum of `20,000/- under the conventional heads, which would be met the ends of justice.

¶23

FAO No.1429 of 1995 3

¶24

Resultantly, the total compensation comes to 2,95,400/-(1800 (monthly income ) x 3/4 (dependency) x 12 x 17 (multiplier) + 20,000 (conventional heads). The balance enhanced amount i.e.65,000/-(2,95,400 – 2,30,400 (already awarded by the learned Tribunal) shall be paid to the appellants, in the manner indicated in the impugned Award, within 35 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.

¶25

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

¶26

16.01.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE

Anita Rani and Others v. Dharam Pal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Rani and Others v. Dharam Pal and Others

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

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

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

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