Partly allowed

Rita & Another v. Rihayash Khan & Others

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jan 2012FAO/2794/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation in a motor accident death case. It raised the deceased's assumed monthly income from `3,510 to `39,000 based on statutory skilled labour rates for social workers, enhanced loss of estate and funeral expenses, and awarded a balance of `66,100 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation to `6,01,600; balance `66,100 to be paid with 7.5% interest.

Rita & Another Vs Rihayash Khan & Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.2794 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.2794 of 2011 (O&M) (MVA No. 110 of 2008) Date of decision:24.1.2012

Smt.Rita and another

....Appellants

Versus

Rihayash Khan and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Ms.Amrita Nagpal, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

Mr.Tejinder K.Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr.Randeep Singh Dhull, Advocate for respondent No.5.

¶13

Mr.Subhash Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.6.

¶14

¶15

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶16

CM No. 9220 CII 2011

¶17

Despite notice, reply has not been filed by the respondents.

¶18

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, delay

¶19

of 200 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶20

Application stands disposed of.

¶21

FAO No.2794 of 2011

¶22

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount, awarded by the learned

¶23

¶24

FAO No.2794 of 2011 (O&M)

¶25

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide Award dated 31.3.2012, on account of death of Rakesh, in a motor vehicular accident on 28.12.2007.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased had been working as social worker with Sulabh International Social Service Organisation. He refers to Ex.P13/A and states the income of the deceased cannot be treated as 3510/- per month, as he being a social worker had been involved in motivating the people in creating awareness regarding health, hygiene and related services. She has further contended that apart from this, the deceased had been working with Path Laboratory and getting another sum of 3000/- per month. She further states that the deceased was an able bodied person of 23 years of age at the time of the accident.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and appropriate. Therefore, there is no scope for any further enhancement.

¶28

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

¶29

Admittedly, the death of Rakesh occurred in an accident on 28.12.2007. He was 23 years of age at the time of accident. From the record, it is amply proved on record that the deceased was attached with Sulabh International as social worker. In view of the nature of his assignment and absence of any academic achievement on record, it can safely be presumed that he was a skilled labourer. In view of the Notification dated 27.6.2009, issued by the Labour Department, Haryana Government under the Minimum

¶30

FAO No.2794 of 2011 (O&M)

¶31

¶32

Wages Act, 1948, the minimum wages of a skilled worker have been fixed at 39,00/- per month. The contention of doing work with Path Laboratory and getting extra income, cannot be believed in the absence of any documentary proof of payment made to the deceased. Accordingly, this Court feels that the income of the deceased deserves to be increased from 3510/- per month to `39,00/- per month as provided under the said Notification. There being two dependents i.e. wife and mother, the dependency has rightly been assessed as 2/3^rd . The multiplier of 18 is also rightly applied as the deceased was 23 years of age at the time of the accident. Therefore, the amount awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side.

¶33

The untimely death of Rakesh was a great shock to his family. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded under the loss of estate is enhanced from 5000/- to 10,000/- and funeral expenses from 5000/- to 10,000/-, which would meet the ends of justice.

¶34

Accordingly, the total compensation comes to 6,01,600/(39,00 (monthly income) x 2/3<sup>rd</sup> (dependency) x 12 x 18 (multiplier) + 40,000 (10000 + 30000 already awarded under the conventional heads). The balance enhanced amount i.e. 66,100/- (6,01,600 - 5,35,500/- 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. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal, till its realisation.

¶35

FAO No.2794 of 2011 (O&M)

¶36

¶37

In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the above extent.

¶38

24.01.2012 gsv

¶39

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

Rita & Another v. Rihayash Khan & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rita & Another v. Rihayash Khan & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Usha Rani and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajpal & Anr. Vs Biram Wati & Ors.

Babita Vs Nareen Kumar

Geeta Devi & Ors. Vs Rihyasah Khan & Ors.

Icici Lombard Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Pawan Singh & Ors.

Mandeep Kaur Vs Parvinder Singh