Partly allowed

Rani & Ors. v. Bhupinder Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Apr 2012FAO/1900/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,34,000 for the death of the deceased. The appellate court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,68,640, directing payment of the additional Rs. 1,34,640 within 45 days with interest at 7.5% per annum. The appeal was partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation from Rs. 2,34,000 to Rs. 3,68,640, with an additional award of Rs. 1,34,640 payable within 45 days at 7.5% interest per annum.

Rani & Ors. Vs Bhupinder Singh & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.1900 of 2005

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.1900 of 2005 MACT Case No.61-T of 2003 Date of decision: 19.4.2012

Rani &others

...Appellants

Versus

Bhupinder Singh & others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present:Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶13

Mr. B.S. Tanque, Advocate for the respondent No.3.

¶14

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala on account of death of Jarnail Singh in vehicular accident that took place on 21.8.2003.

¶16

The brief facts of the case are that on 21.8.2003, deceased Jarnail Singh was standing behind truck No. HR-468486 near Work Centre, Guru Nanak Colony, Rajpura. Bhupinder Singh-respondent No.1 who was driver of the truck mounted on the backside thereof, and without any warning opened the rear

¶17

FAO No.1900 of 2005

¶18

-2-

¶19

shutter of the truck which struck against the head of the deceased. Consequently, deceased received multiple fatal injuries on his head. The deceased was removed to the A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura from where he was referred to the Rajindra hospital Patiala. He remained admitted there as an indoor patient from 21.8.2003 to 28.8.2003 and later on succumbed to the injuries.

¶20

Claimants-appellants have preferred claim petition bearing No.61-T of 2003 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Patiala, which was decided by the learned Tribunal on 1.12.2004, whereby, an amount of Rs.2,34000/- on account of death of Jarnail Singh was allowed.

¶21

Feeling dissatisfied, the claimants-appellants came up in the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.

¶22

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2400/- per month. The deceased was 30 years of age at the time of the accident, but the learned Tribunal took the age of deceased as 35 years and thus wrongly applied the incorrect multiplier of 13, which ought to have been 18. He further contends that the number of claimants are nine therefore, the deduction of 1/3^rd has wrongly been made by the learned Tribunal. He also contends that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the heads loss of consortium and loss of estate.

¶23

-3-

¶24

FAO No.1900 of 2005

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that sufficient and adequate compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶26

In the instant case the age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of the accident, therefore the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the same ought to have been 16 instead of 13 in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77. The monthly income of the deceased has been rightly assessed as Rs.2400/- by the learned Tribunal. But the deduction towards the personal expenditure of the deceased was wrongly assessed by the learned Tribunal. Keeping in view the number of claimants being nine the same should have been 1/5^th instead of 1/3^rd . Ordered accordingly.

¶27

The enhanced amount comes to Rs.1,34,640/(Rs.2400/- monthly income ) X 4/5 (dependency) X 12 X 16 (multiplier)= Rs.3,68,640/- (3,68,640-2,34,000 (amount already awarded by the Tribunal)=Rs.1,34,640/- which shall be payable by the respondents to the claimants within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period the claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 7 ½ % per annum from the date of filing the appeal till its realisation.

¶28

FAO No.1900 of 2005

¶29

-4-

¶30

With the above modification in the impugned award,

¶31

the appeal is partly allowed.

¶32

19.4.2012 aarti

¶33

( JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

Rani & Ors. v. Bhupinder Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani & Ors. v. Bhupinder Singh & Ors.

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

Ismail Vs State of Haryana

K.C. Beniwal Vs Vijay Kumar and Ors.

Vedwati Vs Dalip Kumar and Ors.

Prabhjot Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Paramjit Kaur Vs Sr. Supdt. of Police, Kapurthala & Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Billu Ram & Ors.