Partly allowed

Smt. Usha Rani and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2012FAO/900/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of a claimant. It applied a multiplier of 16 and a dependency factor of 3/4 based on the Supreme Court ruling in Sarla Verma, raising the total compensation. The conventional heads were also increased to meet the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation to Rs. 7,11,200; conventional heads increased to Rs. 20,000; balance to be paid within 45 days with 7.5% interest.

Smt. Usha Rani and Others Vs State of Haryana… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.900 of 1996

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.900 of 1996 Date of decision: 23.1.2012

¶5

Smt.Usha Rani and others

¶6

....Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Ms.Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the appellants

¶12

Mr.Kunal Garg, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶13

¶14

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants, seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded to them by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala City (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), vide Award dated 23.11.1995, on account of death of Dharam Pal in a motor vehicular accident on 11.6.1995.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the deceased left behind five dependents, therefore, the dependency of 2/3^rd assessed by the learned Tribunal is against the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77. Thus, the same ought

¶17

FAO No.900 of 1996 2

¶18

to have been 3/4^th . He has further contended that multiplier of 13 applied by the learned Tribunal is also on the lower side as the deceased was 31 years of age at the time of accident and in view of Smt.Sarla Verma's case (supra), the multiplier of 16 should have been applied. The deceased was the only bread earner of the family. The amount of Rs.3800/- awarded towards the conventional heads is also on the lower side.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and adequate.

¶20

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

¶21

Admittedly, the death of Dharam Pal has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Mam Raj, who was the driver of the Bus, owned by the Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar bearing registration No.HNE 2328. As per the postmortem report Ex.P3, the age of the deceased was 31 years, which stands corroborated by the claim petition filed by the claimants, in which the age of the deceased has been mentioned to be 31 years. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma's case (supra), the multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied. Ordered accordingly. Furthermore, the deceased left behind five dependents i.e. wife, three minor children and old mother, therefore, the dependency is assessed at 3/4^th .

¶22

The untimely death of Dharam Pal was a great shock to his family. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the amount awarded under the conventional heads i.e. `38,00/- is enhanced to

¶23

FAO No.900 of 1996

¶24

¶25

`20,000/-, which would meet the ends of justice.

¶26

Accordingly, the total compensation comes to 7,11,200/(4800 (monthly income) x 3/4<sup>th</sup> (dependency ) x 12 x 16 (multiplier) + 20,000 (conventional heads). The balance enhanced amount i.e.2,082,00/( 7,11,200 – 5,03,000 (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 a certified copy of this judgment. If the enhanced amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the same shall carry interest @7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the appeal, till its realisation.

¶27

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

¶28

23.01.2012 gsv

¶29

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

Smt. Usha Rani and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Usha Rani and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

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

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Vs Usha Rani and Ors.

Kiranpal Kaur Vs Balwinder Singh

Amita Kumari Vs Balwinder Kumar

Rajpal & Anr. Vs Biram Wati & Ors.

Babita Vs Nareen Kumar

Daya Sharma Vs Rajesh Kumar Sharma