Partly allowed

Rita Rani and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2012FAO/566/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against an award in a motor accident claim was partly allowed. The High Court enhanced compensation by applying a multiplier of 13, a dependency of 3/4th, a 30% promotion prospect, and an additional sum for conventional heads, citing Smt. Sarla Verma.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award was modified to increase compensation to Rs. 12,33,800/-. The balance enhanced amount of Rs. 5,86,800/- shall be paid within 45 days with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Rita Rani and Ors. Vs United India Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.566 of 2008

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.566 of 2008 Date of decision: 26.4.2012

Rita Rani and others

...Appellants

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶13

¶14

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

¶15

The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.8.2007, on account of death of Anil Kumar, in a motor vehicular accident on 15.11.2003.

¶16

Learned counsel contends that the deceased was a regular employee with Indian Railways. The learned Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.96,000/- per annum. However, no amount towards future prospects was awarded. He further submits that the deceased was 46 years of age and left behind four dependents i.e. wife, daughter and two sons. Therefore, in

¶17

view of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

¶18

FAO No.566 of 2008 2

¶19

and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the multiplier of 13 and dependency of 3/4^th should be applied. He further submits that the amount awarded towards conventional heads is also on the lower side.

¶20

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondentInsurance Company has contended that just and adequate compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal.

¶21

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

¶22

It is not disputed that the death of Anil Kumar occurred due to the injuries suffered by him in a road accident on 15.11.2003. The age of the deceased is not disputed. He was a Government employee and was serving the Indian Railway. His annual income has been assessed at Rs.96,000/-. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma's case , keeping in view the age and he being in the government employment, an increase of 30% promotion prospects ought to have been granted. Ordered accordingly. He left behind four dependents. In 14 and 21 of Smt. Sarla Verma's case, The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

¶23

Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living

¶24

FAO No.566 of 2008

¶25

¶26

expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six. 21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas , Trilok Chandra and Charlie ), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

¶27

In view of the above, in the present case, the multiplier of 13 instead of 10 ought to have been applied as the deceased was 46 years of age at the time of death and the dependency of 3/4^th ought to have been taken as there were four dependents. Ordered accordingly.

¶28

The untimely death of Anil Kumar was a great loss to his family. Therefore, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that grant of another Rs.10,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Ordered accordingly.

¶29

Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.12,33,800/( 96000 (annual income) + 30% (promotional prospectus) x 3/4^th

¶30

FAO No.566 of 2008 4

¶31

(dependency) x 13 (multiplier) + 17,000 (conventional heads). The balance enhanced amount i.e.Rs.5,86,800/- (12,33,800 -6,47,000 already awarded under loss of dependency) shall be paid to the claimant-appellants, in the manner indicated in the impugned Award, within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, the appellant shall be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the appeal till its realisation.

¶32

In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the above extent.

¶33

26.4.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE

Rita Rani and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rita Rani and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. 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

Anita Sahni Vs Rattan Singh

Kuldeep Kaur & Anr. Vs Khem Chand & Ors.

Arshad @ Arshad Hussain Vs Haroon and Ors.

Darshan Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Vajinder Singh Vs Jai Kishan etc.

Reliance General Insurance Comp Ltd. Vs Dharamveer and Ors.