Allowed

Sunita Rani and Others v. Secretary, Pseb, and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Mar 2012FAO/1591/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court partially allowed the appeal regarding compensation quantum. The Court had conformed to the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income but increased compensation by applying a higher multiplier based on authority, allowing an enhanced total of Rs. 4,79,000 along with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,79,000 along with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

Sunita Rani and Others Vs Secretary, Pseb… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No. 1591 of 2011 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO No. 1591 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.3.2012

¶4

Sunita Rani and others

¶5

................Appellants

¶6

vs.

¶7

Secretary, PSEB, Patiala and others

¶8

.................Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri

¶10

Present: Sh. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate for the appellants

¶11

Sh. Y.P. Khullar, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶12

Sh. Manvinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶13

K.C. Puri, J.

¶14

There is a delay of 242 days in filing the present appeal. The same stands condoned on the grounds mentioned in the application.

¶15

This is an appeal directed by the claimants against the award dated 9.2.2010 passed by Sh. J.S. Klar, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muktsar, vide which the claim petition was partly accepted and a sum of `4,20,000/- was allowed to the claimants. The claimants have preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased was earning `20,000/- per month and the Tribunal has taken

¶17

FAO No. 1591 of 2011 -2-

¶18

the income of the deceased to the extent of `3,000/- per month, which is on lower side. The testimony of claimant Sunita Rani and eye witnesses PW-3 Gurtej Singh and PW-4 Sham Lal, should have been relied upon by the Tribunal.

¶19

I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission. The Tribunal has given a categoric finding that no documentary or any other cogent evidence has been produced on the file to prove the income of the deceased. So, the income of the deceased has been rightly assessed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that deceased was aged 30 years even according to the finding of the Tribunal. However, in view of authority reported as Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, the multiplier applicable at this age is 17.

¶21

The said argument carries weight and has to be accepted. The dependency has been rightly calculated by deducting 1/4^th amount in respect of personal expenses of the deceased. So, the dependency is calculated as 2,250/- per month and the yearly dependency is calculated as 27,000/- (2,250/- X 12). By applying the multiplier of 17, the amount of compensation comes to 4,59,000/- (27,000/- X 17). Another sum of 5,000/- has been allowed in respect of funeral expenses, a sum of 5,000/- has been allowed on account of loss of estate and a sum of 10,000/- has been allowed towards of loss of consortium by the Tribunal. So, that amount is strictly in consonance with the authority in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (Supra) . By adding

¶22

FAO No. 1591 of 2011 -3-

¶23

the said amount, the claimants are held entitled to claim `4,79,000/alongwith interest alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. The enhanced amount shall be paid to the widow in cash.

¶24

The liability to pay the enhanced amount shall be the same as ordered by the Tribunal. The order regarding right of recovery by the Tribunal also remains the same, since there is no cross appeal preferred by the PSEB-respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶25

The appeal stands disposed of.

¶26

( K.C. Puri ) 28.3.2012 Judge chugh

Sunita Rani and Others v. Secretary, Pseb, and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Rani and Others v. Secretary, Pseb, 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

Sukhmander Singh Vs Gurdit Singh and Ors.

Baldev Singh and Ors. Vs Jit Singh and Ors.

Ram Singh Vs Bhagwan Dass and Ors.

Geeta Vs Sheetal Minor & Anr.

Sukhwinder Kaur and Anr. Vs Teja Singh and Ors.

Jangir Kaur Vs Mohan Singh and Ors.