Partly allowed

Balbir Kaur v. Gurjit Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Apr 2012FAO/4868/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor vehicle accident appeal, the High Court held that the widow is not disentitled from compensation due to unproven karewa marriage allegations. The court enhanced the deceased's monthly income to Rs. 3,500 to meet minimum wage standards, revised the total award to Rs. 4,96,000, and directed a 60:40 distribution between the widow and the mother. The claimant-appellant is entitled to a furt

What did the court decide?

The appeal is partly allowed. The total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4,96,000. The widow is entitled to 60% and the mother to 40%. The appellant receives Rs. 88,000 additional sum with interest at

Balbir Kaur Vs Gurjit Singh & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.4868 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.4868 of 2010 ( O & M) In MACT Case No. 85 of 2008 Date of decision 17.4.2012

Balbir Kaur

...Appellant

Versus

Gurjit Singh & others ....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶10

Present:Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate for respondent-No.1

¶12

Mr. Gian Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶13

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned award dated 29.7.2010 for modification in the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, whereby an amount of Rs.4,08,000/- has been awarded on account of death of Sukhjit Singh in a vehicular accident that took place on 24.5.2008. Appellant-widow of the deceased was ignored for the compensation and the entire compensation was awarded to the claimant No.2 i.e mother of the deceased. The present appeal is also for the enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶15

Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on 24.5.2008, deceased Sukhjit Singh was

¶16

FAO No.4868 of 2010 -2-

¶17

coming from the side of bus stand Nasrala towards village Nasrala on link road leading from Village Nasrala to Village Kahri Sahri on motorcycle No. PB-07-K-3810. When he reached near the house of one Preetu Saini, a motor cycle bearing No.Pb-07-K5316 being driven by respondent No.1, Gurjit Singh rashly and negligently struck against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result thereof, the deceased fell down and received multiple injuries and died on the way to the hospital.

¶18

The claimants i.e. widow and parents of the deceased preferred claim petition bearing MACT Case No.85 of 2008, before the Motor accident Claims Tribunal Hoshiarpur, which was decided by the learned Tribunal on 29.7.2010, whereby an amount of Rs.4,08,000/- has been awarded on account of death of Sukhjit Singh in a vehicular accident, but the claimantappellant, who is the widow of the deceased was denied compensation and the entire compensation was awarded to the claimant No.2 i.e mother of the deceased.

¶19

Feeling dissatisfied by the award, the claimant-appellant came up in the present appeal for disbursement of the compensation amount proportionately and for enhancement of compensation amount.

¶20

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the material facts as it has been observed by the learned Tribunal that appellant has performed karewa marriage with the younger brother of the deceased, whereas she has not contracted the

¶21

-3-

¶22

FAO No.4868 of 2010

¶23

marriage nor there is any evidence on record to that effect. He further contends that deceased was 30 years of age at the time of the accident. He was the only earning member in the family. The income of the deceased has been wrongly assessed by the learned Tribunal at Rs.3000/-whereas he was earning Rs.15,000/- from agriculture, dairy farming and from the work of commission agent. He further contends that the income assessed by the learned Tribunal is less than the minimum wages prescribed by the Punjab Government for an unskilled worker.

¶24

The learned counsel for the respondent contends that no proof of income of the deceased was produced on record by the appellant. He further states that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is sufficient and adequate and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶25

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

¶26

From the perusal of the record it is well established that the father of the deceased owned agricultural land and the deceased being elder son must have been contributing towards farming and agricultural work. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent regarding income of the deceased is devoid of any merit. The income at Rs.3000/assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. The deceased was 35 years of age and earning member of the family. Being an agriculturist his income cannot be less than the minimum wages prescribed by the State. The income of deceased

¶27

-4-

¶28

FAO No.4868 of 2010

¶29

is taken at Rs.3500/-per month instead of 3000/- per month in view of the minimum wages prescribed by the State for the relevant year. This Court further awards Rs.20,000/- under the conventional heads.

¶30

At the time of the accident the appellant-widow was dependent upon her deceased husband. Though there are allegations that she has contracted Karewa marriage with the younger brother of her deceased husband, but this itself not disentitle her from the compensation. There is no cogent evidence produced by the Insurance Company regarding Karewa marriage of the appellant-widow. There is reasonable explanation furnished by the father of the deceased that the surveyor of the company got his signatures on the pretext that the compensation is to be given to the family members of the deceased. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that widow is not entitled to the compensation are hereby reversed. Consequently appellant is held entitled to the compensation to the extent of 60% and mother of the deceased is entitled for 40% out of the entire compensation keeping in view their ages. So the compensation payable to the mother and the widow will be disbursed by the Tribunal at the ratio of 60-40, between appellant-Balbir Kaur, widow and mother Manjit Kaur.

¶31

The enhanced amount comes to Rs.88,000/- (Rs. 3500/(monthly income) X 2/3 X 12 X 17 (multiplier)+ 20,000/(awarded by this Court under the conventional heads)= Rs.4,96,000/- (4,96,000-4,08,000 (amount already awarded by

¶32

FAO No.4868 of 2010

¶33

-5-

¶34

the Tribunal)= Rs.88,000/- which shall be payable by the respondent to the claimant-appellant within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period the claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 7 ½ % from the date of filing the appeal till its realization.

¶35

In case the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is already paid to Manjit Kaur, mother of the deceased, the learned Tribunal will ensure that 60% share of the total compensation fallen to the share of Balbir kaur widow is paid to her under intimation to this Court.

¶36

With the above modification, the appeal is partly

¶37

allowed.

¶38

17.04.2012 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN) aarti JUDGE

Balbir Kaur v. Gurjit Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Kaur v. Gurjit Singh & Ors.

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

Reliance Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sushma & Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kavita and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kavita and Ors.

Kavita Vs Deepak Kumar

Ismail Vs State of Haryana

K.C. Beniwal Vs Vijay Kumar and Ors.