Allowed

(O&M)Indira and Ors. v. Jiley Ram and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Jul 2014FAO/1071/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge enhanced the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim. The court allowed additional medical expenses, corrected the cut on the deceased's income from one-third to one-fifth based on Sarla Verma, and fixed the final compensation at Rs. 2,16,000.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,16,000/- for fortnight expenses, Rs. 1,51,669/- for medical bills, and Rs. 10,000/- for funeral, consortium and love and affection.

(O&M)Indira and Ors. Vs Jiley Ram and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

FAO No.1071 of 1999

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.1071 of 1999 Date of decision:30.7.2014

¶5

Smt.Indira & ors.

¶6

......Appellant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

Jiley Ram & ors.

¶9

......Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶11

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

¶14

Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the appellant(s).

¶15

Mr. P.S. Batta, Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company.

¶16

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)

¶17

This is claimants' appeal challenging the award dated 9.11.1998 on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

¶18

The claimants are widow, mother and three minor children of deceased Hor Singh son of Bahori Singh, who died in a motor vehicular accident on 20.6.1996 caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-driver of offending vehicle No.HR-38-5223 owned by respondent No.2 which was insured with respondent No.3.

¶19

It is not in dispute that Hor Singh son of Bahori Singh (since deceased) suffered multiple injuries on 20.6.1996 and remained admitted in hospital and succumbed to his injuries on 21.9.1996 after a long treatment of three months.

¶20

Saini Pushpinder 2014.08.02 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶21

FAO No.1071 of 1999

¶22

¶23

In the claim petition, the claimants apart from claiming compensation for the death of aforesaid deceased Hor Singh have also claimed expenses incurred by them on the treatment of said Hor Singh prior to his death. The Tribunal while determining compensation held that the appellants were not entitled to the medical expenses. However, the claimants were awarded compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- after assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month and thereafter, determining annual dependency at Rs.12,000/- after applying a cut of 1/3^rd thereafter, a multiplier of 15 was applied. Another sum of Rs.2,000/-for funeral charges and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.3,000/as loss of estate were also awarded.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that in view of the Division Bench Judgement of this Court reported as Indraj versus Naresh Kumar 1999(2) RCR (Civil) 455, the Tribunal has erred while declining the claim of the appellants to reimburse the medical expenses of Rs.1,51,669/- incurred by the deceased on his treatment prior to his death.

¶25

Even learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company could not dispute the law as laid down by this Court according to which the claimants were entitled to the expenses incurred by the deceased on his treatment.

¶26

At this stage, it may also be noticed that the appellants duly produced the medical bills of treatment amounting to Rs.1,51,669/- on the record of the Tribunal. However, the same were not taken into consideration and even before this Court learned counsel representing the respondent-Insurance Company has not disputed the fact that the medical bills for the expenses incurred on the treatment of deceased are on the

¶27

Saini Pushpinder 2014.08.02 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶28

FAO No.1071 of 1999

¶29

¶30

record. In view thereof, the appellants are held entitled to Rs.1,51,669/towards medical expenses of the deceased.

¶31

It may further be noticed that the claimants herein are five in number whereas a cut of 1/3^rd has been applied towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Keeping in view the number of dependents upon the deceased it cannot be expected that the deceased was spending to the extent of 1/3^rd share of his income for his own expenses. Keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(3)RCR (Civil) 77 , this Court is of the view that a cut of 1/5^th should have been applied instead of 1/3^rd as applied by the Tribunal.

¶32

Thus, it is held that after applying a cut of Rs.300/- on the income of Rs.1500/- as assessed by the Tribunal, the annual dependency of the deceased is fixed at Rs.14,400/- and thus, after applying a multiplier of 15, the compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs.2,16,000/-. The appellants are also entitled to other amount of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium and love and affection.

¶33

Let the enhanced compensation be paid to the claimants within two months along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.

¶34

July 30, 2014 ps

¶35

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶36

Saini Pushpinder 2014.08.02 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

(O&M)Indira and Ors. v. Jiley Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M)Indira and Ors. v. Jiley Ram 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

Darshan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

State Bank of India Employee Coop.Non.Ag Vs Rajinder Pal Singh etc.

Balka Ram and Anr. Vs Prithi Singh and Ors.

(O&M)Gurdial Singh and Ors. Vs Seema Kiran and Ors.

(O&M) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Panipat Vs Sukhpal Kaur and Others

Daljit Kaur Vs Dilbag Singh