Partly allowed

Banarsi Dass & Others v. Achhar Kumar & Another

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jan 2012FAO/764/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal enhancing compensation for death due to an accident. The High Court modified the award by increasing the deceased's monthly income to Rs. 4,000, adjusting the dependency to 3/4th, and raising the multiplier to 14, resulting in an additional payout of Rs. 1,89,000.

What did the court decide?

Award modified; additional balance of Rs. 1,89,000 to be paid within 45 days with 7.5% per annum interest for delay.

Banarsi Dass & Others Vs Achhar Kumar & Another — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.764 of 2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO No.764 of 2011 Date of decision: 17.1.2012

¶4

Banarsi Dass and others

¶5

...Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Achhar Kumar and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶10

Present: Mr.NK Verma, Advocate for the appellants.

¶11

Mr.Ramesh Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr.V.Ramswaroop,Advocate for respondent No.2-Insurance Company

¶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, (Fast Track Court), Fatehgarh Sahib (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 25.8.2009, on account of the death of Raj Kumar, in an accident on 23.3.2006.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants has contended that the deceased was working with M/s United Traders, Wine Contractor Company Ludhiana and he being Incharge of three shops of the firm, was getting salary of 8000/- per month. Apart from this, he was also working as collector of cash from different shops and getting 25,00/- to 3000/- per month in this regard. He was also doing agricultural work and earning about 11000/- per month. The claimants produced Ex.A3, salary

¶17

FAO No.764 of 2011 2

¶18

certificate, according to which, the deceased had been drawing salary of 8000/- per month. But the learned Tribunal without considering the said facts, assessed his income at 3000/- per month. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the dependency. There being five dependents, the dependency of 3/4^th should have been taken. He has further contended that multiplier of 13 applied by the learned Tribunal is also wrong. The multiplier of 14 should have been applied because the deceased was 42 years of age the time of his death.

¶19

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the learned Tribunal has determined a just and appropriate compensation. Therefore, there is no scope for any further enhancement.

¶20

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

¶21

Admittedly, the death of Raj Kumar occurred on account of a motor vehicular accident on 23.3.2006. He was an able bodied person. He was supporting a big family and was the only bread earner in the family. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the income assessed by the learned Tribunal i.e. 3000/- per month, being on the lower side, is enhanced to 4000/- per month. Regarding the dependency, it has wrongly been taken as 2/3^rd because there being five dependents, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 , the same should have been taken as 3/4^th . Ordered accordingly. Furthermore, there is no contrary evidence regarding

¶22

FAO No.764 of 2011 3

¶23

the age of the deceased i.e. 42 years as per Annexure A2. Therefore, in view of Smt.Sarla Verma's case (supra)the multiplier is increased from 13 to 14.

¶24

The amount awarded under the conventional heads is just and reasonable.

¶25

Resultantly, the total compensation comes to 5,29,000/-( 4000 (income) x 3/4 (dependency) x 12 x 14 (multiplier) +25000 (already awarded under conventional heads). The balance amount i.e. 1,89,000/(5,29,000- 3,40,000 already awarded by the learned tribunal) 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.

¶26

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

¶27

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶28

17.1.2012 gsv

Banarsi Dass & Others v. Achhar Kumar & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banarsi Dass & Others v. Achhar Kumar & Another

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

Ashok Kumar Vs Satbir Singh and Another

(O&M) Vidya Jaiswal and Anr. Vs Avtar Singh and Anr.

Anita Rani and Others Vs Dharam Pal and Others

Satish Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Kusum Rani Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr.

Beant Kaur Vs Gursewak Singh