Partly allowed

Anita v. Avtar Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jan 2012FAO/2802/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the claimant heirs of a deceased victim of a motor accident incidentally involving a truck. The court found the Tribunal's awarded compensation inadequate considering the deceased was the sole breadwinner leaving behind a widow, two minor children, and an old mother. The court enhanced the compensation amount by adding specific heads of loss beyond the Tr

What did the court decide?

The appeal is partly allowed; the impugned award is modified to increase the total compensation to Rs.35,000/- including Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- for

Anita Vs Avtar Singh — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.2802 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.2802 of 2011 (O&M) (in MACT Case No.66 of 2008) Date of decision: 12.1.2012

Anita and others

...Appellants

Versus

Avtar Singh and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

Mr.Bijender Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate for Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for for respondent No.2-Insurance Company

¶13

¶14

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

¶15

CM No.9231 CII of 2011

¶16

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, delay of 16 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

¶17

Application stands disposed of.

¶18

FAO No.2802 of 2011

¶19

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 1.10.2010, on account of the death of Mukesh Kumar, in an

¶20

FAO No.2802 of 2011 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

accident on 27.10.2008.

¶23

The brief facts giving rise to the case are that on 27.10.2008, Mukesh Kumar (since deceased) was sitting in front of his shop and Lalit Patel (since deceased) and his father, standing outside the shop, were talking with each other. Meanwhile, a truck bearing registration No.HP12A-7999, being driven by Avtar Singh, in a rash and negligent manner, hit and crushed Mukesh Kumar and Lalit Patel. Claimants, who are wife and children of Mukesh Kumar, filed a claim petition, which was allowed and the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,30,400/- on account of loss of dependency, Rs.2,000/- towards expenses of last rites and ceremonies and Rs.2000/- towards loss of consortium. Feeling dissatisfied with the compensation, they preferred the present appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the deceased was employed in Gurukul School, Sector 26, Panchkula and had been getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. He has further contended that he was the only bread earner in the family. Moreover, the learned Tribunal awarded a meager amount of Rs.4,000/- towards expenses of last rites, ceremonies and consortium.

¶25

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondentshave contended that the learned Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation and therefore, there is no scope of any further enhancement.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶27

record.

¶28

From the perusal of the record, it is admitted that the death of

¶29

FAO No.2802 of 2011 (O&M)

¶30

¶31

Mukesh Kumar occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The deceased was married at the time of his death. There being no cogent and convincing evidence regarding income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal, taking him as a casual labouer, assessed his income at Rs.35,00/- per month, which was prevalent at that time.

¶32

However, the amount awarded under the conventional heads, in the opinion of this Court, is on the lower side. The deceased left behind four dependents i.e. widow, two minor children and old mother. He was the only bread earner in the family. The untimely death of the deceased was a great shock to the family. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court enhances the amount as under, which would meet the ends of justice:-

¶33

Funeral expenses Total Rs.10,000/-

¶34

Loss of estate another Rs.5,000/-

¶35

Transportation another Rs.5,000/-

¶36

Loss of love and affection another Rs.15,000/-

¶37

Total Rs.35,000/-

¶38

No other point has been urged by the learned counsel for the

¶39

parties.

¶40

Accordingly, the enhanced amount i.e. Rs.31,000/- (35,0004000 (conventional heads already granted 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,

¶41

FAO No.2802 of 2011 (O&M)

¶42

¶43

failing which, the same shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal, till its realisation.

¶44

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

¶45

12.1.2012 gsv

¶46

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

Anita v. Avtar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita v. Avtar Singh

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

Neha Anand Vs Rahul Anand etc.

Manju Gulati Vs Umesh Gulati @ Toni

Jagir Kaur Vs Tejinder Pal Singh

Net Ram Vs Amit Kumar and Ors.

Kamlesh Patel Vs Avtar Singh

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anita and Ors.