Partly allowed

(O&M) Smt Gurbeant Kaur and Another v. Parmod Kumar and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Mar 2014FAO/1260/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989, the appellant sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for a deceased dependent driver. The High Court recalculated compensation based on income tax returns, applied a deduction for the deceased’s bachelor status, and used a multiplier derived from the parents’ age.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,76,000 payable to appellants with interest at 6% per annum from 09.05.1997 till realization.

(O&M) Smt Gurbeant Kaur and Another Vs Parmod… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

FAO No.1260 of 1997

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.1260 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision:21.03.2014

¶5

Gurbeant Kaur & another

.... Appellants

versus

Parmodh & others

.... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

¶11

Present: Mr. O.P.Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tarun Singla, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

None for respondent No.1.

¶13

Dr. Gopal Krishan, Advocate for Mr. P.S.Saini, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶14

¶15

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶18

Anita Chaudhry, J.(Oral)

¶19

This is claimant's appeal, who is seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar vide its award dated 08.11.1996.

¶20

Before deliberating on the issues raised by the appellants, the factual matrix: Mandeep Singh, aged 21 years, was unmarried and was a driver and was earning Rs.3,000/-per month. He met with an accident on 21.05.1992. The parents filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989. After a contest, the claim was allowed and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded to the appellants.

¶21

The grievance of the appellants is that the income tax

¶22

Bura Sonia 2014.03.26 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶23

FAO No.1260 of 1997

¶24

-2-

¶25

record had been produced where salary of Rs.30,000/- per annum was shown but the Tribunal had taken the income to be Rs.2,500/- per month and thereafter, it deducted Rs.1,000/- for the dependency and calculated the compensation by applying the multiplier of 12. It was urged that the multiplier of 18 should have been applied considering the age of the deceased and the income should be doubled and calculation should be made taking the income to be Rs.5,000/- per month. It was urged that an addition for future income should be made. Reliance was placed on Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & another (2009)6 SCC 121 and New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Shanti Pathak & others (2007) 10 SCC 1 .

¶26

On the other hand, it was contended that earlier the age of the deceased was being taken into account for calculating the compensation but thereafter the Apex Court had taken a view that the age of the appellants should be taken into account for assessing the compensation and deduction of 50% has to be made as the deceased was a bachelor and there is a difference of opinion of different Benches.

¶27

It is settled that where the deceased is a bachelor there has to be a deduction of 50% in the income. There is a difference of opinion with respect to the multiplier to be applied, whether it should be the age of the parents or age of the deceased. I would use the multiplier, keeping the age of parents into view, which the Apex Court had taken way back in 1996 and is still holding fort. The parents were in the age group of 40-45 years when the accident occurred, therefore, the multiplier applicable would be 14. In the income tax returns, the

¶28

Bura Sonia 2014.03.26 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶29

FAO No.1260 of 1997

¶30

-3-

¶31

income of the deceased was stated to be Rs.30,000/- per annum and the income per month would be Rs.2,500/-. An addition of 50% in the income should be made in terms of Santosh Devi vs. National

¶32

Insurance Company Ltd. and others, 2012 (6) SCC 421. The monthly income would be Rs.3,750/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% deduction has to be made for personal expenses. The income available would be Rs.1,875/- per month. The annual contribution would be Rs.22,500/-. After applying the multiplier of 14, the compensation would work out to Rs.3,15,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,44,000/-, which would be deducted and the balance Rs.1,71,000/- would be payable. As the accident had occurred in the year 1992, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is allowed towards loss of estate making the total compensation to be Rs.1,76,000/-. This amount would be payable to the appellants with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of appeal (09.05.1997) till realization. The amount shall be paid by the respondents No.1 & 2 jointly and severally.

¶33

The award stands modified to the extent noted above. The appeal is partly allowed.

¶34

(Anita Chaudhry) Judge

¶35

21.03.2014 sonia

¶36

Bura Sonia 2014.03.26 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

(O&M) Smt Gurbeant Kaur and Another v. Parmod Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Smt Gurbeant Kaur and Another v. Parmod Kumar 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

Vipin Guptta @ Aman Mahajan and Ors. Vs Parshotam Singh and Ors.

(O&M) Roshan La Batra Vs Raghubir Singh and Ors.

Pala Ram Vs Managing Director,Pepsu Road Transport

(O&M) Indu and Ors. Vs Ramphal and Ors.

Ramphal Vs Surender and Ors.

Prem Parkash and Ors. Vs Ravinder Kumar and Ors.