Allowed

Bunty & Ors. v. Anshul & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Mar 2012FAO/2147/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Tribunal's compensation assessment. The Court increased the compensation from the originally assessed amount of approximately 40,000 INR to 7,40,000 INR by applying a multiplier of 18 under Sarla Verma guidelines and allowing additional sums for loss of estate and consortium with 9% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 7,40,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

Bunty & Ors. Vs Anshul & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No. 2147 of 2011 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO No. 2147 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.3.2012

¶4

Smt. Bunty and others

¶5

................Appellants vs.

¶6

Anshul and others

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

Present: Sh. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellants

¶10

Sh. Vivek Singal, Advocate for respondent No.3 – Insurance company.

¶11

K.C. Puri, J.

¶12

This is an appeal directed by Smt. Bunty widow of Tej Pal and Smt. Krishna and Chander Bhan, parents of Tej Pal, claiming compensation on account of death of Tej Pal in a motor vehicular accident.

¶13

The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as 5,000/- per month and dependency has been taken as 3,330/- per month after applying the cut of 1/3^rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. The yearly dependency has been taken as

¶14

FAO No. 2147 of 2011 -2-

¶15

`39,960/-. So, the calculation to that extent does not call for any interference.

¶16

The only point urged before me is that the age of the deceased was 23 years and as such in view of authority reported as Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, the multiplier of 18 should have been applied. It is further contended that a sum of 10,000/- allowed on account of last rites and 5,000/- allowed in respect of loss of consortium, is on lower side.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the award of the Tribunal.

¶18

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the case file.

¶19

So far as yearly dependency of 39,960/-, is concerned, that has been correctly assessed by the Tribunal. However, in view of the authority in **Smt. Sarla Verma's case (Supra),** the multiplier of 18 should have been applied by the Tribunal as the age of the deceased was 23 years. So, by applying the multiplier of 18 the amount of compensation is calculated as 7,19,280/- (39,960/- X 18). Another sum of 20,000/- stands allowed on account of loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and transportation expenses etc. in view of authority in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (Supra). So, in this manner, the claimants are held entitled to claim 7,39,280/-, by rounding off, say 7,40,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, till realization. The liability to pay the

¶20

FAO No. 2147 of 2011 -3-

¶21

enhanced amount shall be the same as held by the Tribunal.

¶22

The appeal stands disposed of.

¶23

( K.C. Puri ) 14.3.2012 Judge chugh

Bunty & Ors. v. Anshul & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bunty & Ors. v. Anshul & 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

Gulshan Dhingra Vs Alka Dhingra

Mahesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Mange Ram

Ganga Ram Vs Jaswant Kaur and Anr.

Reliance Infocomm Ltd. and Anr. Vs Satpal and Ors.

Bhateri & Ors. Vs Anshul & Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Sahi Ram and Ors.