Partly allowed

Surinder Kaur and Ors. v. Shiv Kumar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jan 2012FAO/4670/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge oral judgment allowed the appellant-motor accident claimants' appeal partly. Enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal by applying 30% future prospects addition, adjusting dependency to 3/4th, setting multiplier to 14, and granting conventional heads of Rs. 20,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 29,68,400; additional balance amount of Rs. 15,82,400 ordered to be paid by respondent Insurance Company.

Surinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Shiv Kumar and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.4670 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.4670 of 2010 (in MACT case No.170 of 2006) Date of decision: 18.1.2012

¶5

Surinder Kaur & others

¶6

....Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shiv Kumar and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.Sanjiv Patiyal, Advocate for Mr.Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellants

¶12

Mr.Raghujit Singh Madan, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company. *****

¶13

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶14

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide Award dated 16.9.2009, on account of death of Gurdarshan Singh in a motor vehicular accident on 15.3.2006.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the deceased was working as a Turner in Ordinance Cable Factory, Industrial Area, Chandigarh as a permanent employee and had been drawing a salary of `18,042/- per month. But the learned Tribunal did not consider his future

¶16

¶17

FAO No.4670 of 2010

¶18

income. He further contends that there being five dependents, the dependency of 3/4^th should have been taken as per 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 .

¶19

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company has stated that the learned Tribunal determined a just and adequate compensation. Therefore, there is no scope for any further enhancement.

¶20

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

¶21

Admittedly, the deceased had been drawing a salary of `18,000/- per month. He was a permanent employee with Ordinance Cable Factory, at Chandigarh. The age of the deceased was 42 years at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal has not awarded anything towards future prospects. In para 11 of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma's case (supra), has observed as under:-

¶22

“11. In Susamma Thomas , this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit , the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a

¶23

FAO No.4670 of 2010

¶24

¶25

permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words ‘actual salary’ should be read as ‘actual salary less tax’]. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was selfemployed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.”

¶26

Accordingly, in the present case, the deceased being 42 years of age at the time of the accident, this Court grants 30% increase of the actual salary towards future prospects.

¶27

Furthermore, there being five dependents, in view of Smt.Sarla Verma's case (supra), the dependency of 3/4^th should have been taken. Ordered accordingly. The multiplier of 11, applied by the learned Tribunal is also incorrect. In view of Smt.Sarla Verma's case (supra), the multiplier of 14 instead of 11 should have been applied because at the time of the accident, the deceased was 42 years of age. Ordered accordingly.

¶28

FAO No.4670 of 2010

¶29

¶30

The untimely death of Gurdarshan Singh was a great shock to his family. On perusal of the impugned award, it emerges that no amount has been awarded towards conventional heads. Therefore, this Court grants a sum of `20,000/- under the conventional heads.

¶31

Accordingly, the total compensation comes to 29,68,400/(18000 (monthly salary) + 5400 (30% increase towards future prospects) x 3/4<sup>th</sup> (dependency) x 12 x 14 (multiplier) + 20,000 (conventional heads). The balance enhanced amount i.e. 15,82,400/-(29,68,400 – 13,86,000 (already awarded by the learned Tribunal), out of which the income tax deduction shall be made at source, 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, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the present appeal, till its realisation.

¶32

The present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the above extent.

¶33

18.01.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE

Surinder Kaur and Ors. v. Shiv Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Kaur and Ors. v. Shiv Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Kusum Rani Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr.

Banarsi Dass & Others Vs Achhar Kumar & Another

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Krishna Devi and Ors.

Subhash Chand Vs Shiv Kumar and Ors.

Shashi Bansal Vs Sunil Kumar