Partly allowed

Kamlesh Patel v. Avtar Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jan 2012FAO/4814/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly, condoning the delay. It enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of a young son, increasing the award under heads of funeral expenses, loss of estate, transportation, and loss of love and affection to meet the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 33,000/- shall be paid to the appellants within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

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

¶1

FAO No.4814 of 2011 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO No.4814 of 2011 (O&M) (in MACT Case No.67 of 2008) Date of decision: 12.1.2012

¶4

Kamlesh Patel and another

¶5

...Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Avtar Singh and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶10

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

¶11

Mr.Bijender Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

¶15

CM Nos.18177-78 CII of 2011

¶16

Keeping in view the averments made in the applications, delay

¶17

of 93 days in refiling and 16 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

¶18

Applications stand disposed of.

¶19

FAO No.4814 of 2011

¶20

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 Lalit Patel, in an accident on 27.10.2008.

¶21

FAO No.4814 of 2011 (O&M) 2

¶22

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 parents of Lalit Patel, filed a claim petition, which was allowed and the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,06,000/- on account of loss of dependency, and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Feeling dissatisfied with the compensation, they preferred the present appeal.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the deceased was a 21 years high school pass young boy; and was doing agriculture work. He was having 10 acres agricultural land and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal awarded a meager amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. No amount has been awarded towards loss of estate, love and affection etc.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

From the perusal of the record, it is admitted that the death of Lalit Patel occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The deceased was unmarried at the time of death. There being no cogent and convincing evidence regarding income of the deceased, the

¶27

FAO No.4814 of 2011 (O&M) 3

¶28

learned Tribunal, taking him as a casual labouer, assessed his income at Rs.35,00/- per month, which was prevalent at that time. The claimant did not produce any proof regarding the land. However, the amount awarded under the conventional heads, in the opinion of this Court, is on the lower side. The deceased was the only son of his parents. 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

¶29

under, which would meet the ends of justice:-

¶30

1.	Funeral expenses	Total Rs.10,000/-
2.	Loss of estate	another Rs.5,000/-
3.	Transportation	another Rs.5,000/-
4.	Loss of love and affection	another Rs.15,000/-
		___________________ Total Rs.35,000/- -----------------------------

¶31

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

¶32

parties.

¶33

Accordingly, the enhanced amount i.e. Rs.33,000/- (35,0002000 already awarded towards funeral expenses) 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 appeal, till its realisation.

¶34

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

¶35

gsv

¶36

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶37

12.1.2012

Kamlesh Patel v. Avtar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Patel 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.

Anita Vs Avtar Singh

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anita and Ors.