Partly allowed

Afsana and Ors. v. Azad and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jan 2012FAO/4558/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge appeal challenged the quantum of compensation, specifically the one-third deduction for personal expenses. The court held this deduction violated the Supreme Court's ruling in Smt. Sarla Verma, mandating only one-fifth. It enhanced the compensation by one-third and awarded interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 5,52,960/-; excess of Rs. 92,160/- to be paid within three months with 7.5% p.a. interest on delay.

Afsana and Ors. Vs Azad and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

FAO No.4558 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.4558 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:3.1.2012

¶5

Smt.Afsana and others

....Appellants

Versus

Azad and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Ms.Indu Bala, Advocate for Mr.ND Achint, Advocate for the appellants

¶12

None for respondent No.1.

¶13

Mr.Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2. Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶14

¶15

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶16

Application for condonation of delay.

¶17

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, delay of 139 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

¶18

Application stands disposed of.

¶19

FAO No.4558 of 2010

¶20

The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that there being 7 dependents, the deduction to the extent of 1/3^rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, is on the higher side.

¶21

FAO No.4558 of 2010 (O&M) 2

¶22

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

¶23

Admittedly, there are seven dependents. The deceased was the only bread earner in the family. The learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3^rd income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The deduction made is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 , the deduction ought to have been 1/5^th instead of 1/3^rd . Accordingly, the dependency is assessed at 4/5^th .

¶24

Resultantly, the total compensation comes to 5,52,960/-(3600 (monthly income) x 4/5 ( dependency) x 12 x 16 (multiplier). The total enhanced amount i.e.92160/-(5,52,960- 4,60,800 ( excluding conventional head already awarded by the learned Tribunal) shall be paid to the appellants, in the manner indicated in the impugned award, within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the appeal, till its realisation.

¶25

In view of above, the present appeal is partly allowed with the modification indicated above in the impugned award.

¶26

3.01.2012

¶27

gsv

¶28

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

Afsana and Ors. v. Azad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afsana and Ors. v. Azad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharanjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Avtar Singh and Ors.

Sharanjit Kaur Vs Avtar Singh and Ors.

Phool Singh Vs Arjun Singh & Ors.

Latif Vs Afsana and Ors.

Bhoti Devi Vs Bir Singh

Gurchet Singh and Ors. Vs Punsup and Ors.