Partly allowed

Sheo Ram & Ors. v. Tarlochan Singh & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Apr 2012FAO/6343/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court enhanced compensation awarded for a motor accident death, correcting the multiplier from 11 to 13 and increasing funeral and estate expenses. The appeal is partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 63,000/- (additional Rs. 15,000/- for funeral/estate plus Rs. 48,000/- for dependency) payable within 45 days with 7 1/2% interest.

Sheo Ram & Ors. Vs Tarlochan Singh & Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.6343 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.6343 of 2010 In MACT Case No.34 of 2008 Date of decision: 25.4.2012

¶5

Sheo Ram & Others

¶6

...Appellants

¶7

Versus Tarlochan Singh & others ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶9

Present:None for the appellant.

¶10

None for respondent No.1.

¶11

Ms.Smriti Dhir, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

¶12

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)

¶13

C.M. No.27895-C-II of 2010

¶14

For the reasons mentioned in the application the delay of 147 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

¶15

Main appeal

¶16

The claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, on account of death of Chalti Devi, in a vehicular accident that took place on 30.3.2008.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that on 30.3.2008, appellant Sheo Ram along with his wife Chalti Devi and grandson was going on a motor cycle from his house to Sucha Sauda Satasang Bhawan, Naraingarh. When they reached near Mini

¶18

-2-

¶19

FAO No.6343 of 2010

¶20

Delux Restaurant, near Bus stand of village Dera, a truck bearing registration No.HP-12A-8427, being driving by respondent No.1. Tarlochan Singh in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter of Sheo Ram. As a result thereof the occupants of the motor cycle fell down on kachha portion of the road side and received injuries. They were removed to the Civil Hospital Naraingarh, from where they were referred to PGIMER Chandigarh. The deceased Chalti Devi died on the same day.

¶21

Claimant-appellant preferred claim petition bearing No.34 of 2008 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ambala which was decided by the learned Tribunal on 9.12.2009 whereby an amount of Rs.2,73,500/- was awarded on account of death of Chalti Devi.

¶22

Feeling dissatisfied, the claimants-appellants came up in the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent states that sufficient and adequate compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶24

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

¶25

In the instant case the age of the deceased on the basis of available material was rightly taken to be 50 years at the time of the accident by the learned Tribunal but the learned Tribunal, has applied the incorrect multiplier of 11 which ought to have been 13 as per the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court

¶26

-3-

¶27

FAO No.6343 of 2010

¶28

in Sarla Verma & others Vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC121. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- under the head loss of estate, which this Court feels is on the lower side. Thus, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is allowed under these heads. Ordered accordingly..

¶29

The enhanced amount comes to Rs.63,000/- (15000/(awarded by this Court under the heads funeral expenses and loss of estate) + 48,000/ ( enhanced amount after applying increased multiplier in annual dependency) = Rs.63,000/- which shall be payable by the respondents to the claimant-appellants 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 % per annum from the date of filing the appeal till its realisation.

¶30

With the above modification in the impugned award, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶31

JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶32

25.4.2012 aarti

Sheo Ram & Ors. v. Tarlochan Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheo Ram & Ors. v. Tarlochan Singh & Anr.

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

Ram Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Rattan Singh Vs State of Haryana

Neha Vs Surender and Anr.

Anita Sahni Vs Rattan Singh

Kuldeep Kaur & Anr. Vs Khem Chand & Ors.

Arshad @ Arshad Hussain Vs Haroon and Ors.