Single judge enhanced compensation determined for death of a widow and two children by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal relying on Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Appeal allowed. Compensation revised to ₹2,81,700.
Compensation enhanced to ₹2,81,700 payable at 7.5% interest from filing date; appeal allowed to the extent of enhancement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FAO No.50 of 1992
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.50 of 1992 Date of Decision.18.10.2012
Pritam Kaur widow of Gurdev Singh and others
.......Appellants
versus
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala through its Managing Director and others
........Respondents
Present: Mr.Ankit Kaushal, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
3,000/- as Mason. The Tribunal while considering the fact that the type of avocation was such that he could not be expected to have earning right through the year for all 365 days, took the average income at 1200/- per month, provided for 1/3rd deduction for the expenses, adopted a multiplier of 14 and determined a compensation of ` 1,34,400/-. The Tribunal has also provided for 12% interest. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants would contend that he wasFAO No.50 of 1992
-2-
supporting a family of wife and two children and he was himself being very young and it was too low a figure to determine the income only at 1200/- per month. We have come by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in **_<u>Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421</u>_** where for determination of income at Rs.1500/- for a person, whose death had taken place in the year 1990, the Supreme Court had assumed that over a period of time, he would have secured a higher income and took the income at 1900/-. They were actually expanding the scope for possible future increase. A Tribunal that determines the compensation assumes the income to be uniform in a stable economy. If the case itself has been disposed of as soon as the appeal was filed, it could have come by different result but we are taking up the case in the year 2012 and the reality is that a Mason earns at least 300/- per day when he has full work and average income of Mason could not have been less than 6000/- to 7,000/- per month. I will not go as far as to escalate the income to 6000/- to 7,000/- but I would take a realistic situation of how the Supreme Court brought the issue in **_<u>Santosh Devi's case</u>_** (supra) and provide for 50% escalation and take the average income to be 1800/-, make a deduction of 1/3rd and take the contribution to the family at 1200/- per month. I would substitute the multiplier as 18 instead of 14 as taken by the Tribunal and assess the loss of dependency at 2,59,200/-. I will also provide for loss of consortium at 5,000/- to the wife, 5,000/- for each of the children towards loss of love and affection, 5,000/- towards loss to estate and 2500/towards funeral expenses. The overall compensation payable will be ` 2,81,700/-. The amount in addition to what has been determined
FAO No.50 of 1992
-3-
already will attract interest @7.5% from the date of filing of the petitioner till the date of payment. The amount shall be distributed equally amongst the wife and children. The liability shall be in the manner as determined already by the Tribunal.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
October 18, 2012 Pankaj*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether compensation vide award dated 18.10.1992 for death of a male should be enhanced?
Whether compensation was determined at an appropriate level?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.Relied on¶19
Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421 · Who else cites this
Pritam Kaur and others
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala and others
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court