Allowed

Jagvir Kaur and Anr. v. Naresh Kumar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jul 2014FAO/5052/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this claimants' appeal challenging a Tribunal Award for motor vehicle accident compensation, the Court held the assessed income inadequate. It modified the Award to revise the deceased's monthly income from Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 10,000 while keeping all other factors unchanged.

What did the court decide?

The Award of the Tribunal is modified to set the deceased's income at Rs. 10,000 per month; the enhanced compensation must be paid within two months.

Jagvir Kaur and Anr. Vs Naresh Kumar and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

FAO No.5052 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.5052 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:25.07.2014

¶5

Jagvir Kaur and another

¶6

....Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Naresh Kumar and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶11

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

¶12

To be referred to reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present:- Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.

¶15

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶16

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J

¶17

This is claimants' appeal challenging the impugned Award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation granted by the Tribunal. The claimant-appellants are the widow and minor son of Jagnandan Singh who died in a motor vehicle accident on 15.11.2007 caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck No.PB-05-M-7040 owned by respondent No.2, and which was duly insured by respondent No.3.

¶18

According to the claimants, at the relevant time, the deceased was 29 years of age and earning ` 36,000/- per month

¶19

Kadian Savita 2014.08.02 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶20

FAO No.5052 of 2011 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

from agriculture. Claimant-Jagvir Kaur stepped into witness box as AW1. In her statement, she stated that her husband-deceased was owner of 24 ½ killas of land. Besides that he was running a dairy farm and thus was earning ` 36,000/- per month from cultivation and by sale of milk. On the other hand, no evidence was led by respondents to rebut the statement of the claimant who stepped into witness box as AW1. In fact, no witness stepped into witness box on behalf of the respondents, even to formally support their case as pleaded in the written statement.

¶23

The Tribunal assessed the income at 4,000/- per month i.e. 48,000/- per annum and a cut of 1/3^rd towards personal expenses was applied and thus, annual dependency of the claimants was determined at 32,000/-. Taking the age of deceased 32 years as per the postmortem report, multiplier of 16 was applied holding that the claimants were entitled to 5,12,000/- as compensation. Apart from that, the claimants were also held entitled to receive 10,000/- on account of funeral expenses. Appellant No.1 also held entitled to receive 10,000/- on account of loss of consortium whereas, claimant No.2 held entitled to receive 10,000/- on account of loss of love and affection. Thus, the appellants were held entitled to 5,42,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its payment. Further the respondents were held liable to pay the amount of compensation

¶24

Kadian Savita 2014.08.02 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶25

FAO No.5052 of 2011 (O&M)

¶26

¶27

jointly and severally.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that in the instant case, income of the deceased has been determined by the Tribunal on the lower side. Admittedly, the deceased was cultivating 24 acres of land by engaging servants. No doubt, the cultivation is still being done by the widow by engaging servants, however, definitely there has been a loss to the claimants because of the death of Jagnandan Singh, who was definitely contributing to the estate which includes labour and management etc. and moreover, there is no rebuttal to the statement of the claimant with regard to his income and in these circumstances, this Court is of the view that income of the deceased should have been assessed at ` 10,000/- per month. Thereafter, the annual dependency of the claimant should have been determined by applying a cut of 1/3^rd and multiplier of 16.

¶29

Thus, this appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the Award of the Tribunal is modified holding that income of the deceased should have been taken at 10,000/- per month instead of 4,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. All other factors shall remain the same as per the Award of the Tribunal.

¶30

Let the enhanced amount of compensation be calculated and paid to the claimants on the basis of the aforesaid income of ` 10,000/- p.m. within two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶31

Kadian Savita 2014.08.02 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶32

FAO No.5052 of 2011 (O&M)

¶33

¶34

This appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.

¶35

July 25, 2014

¶36

savita

¶37

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶38

Kadian Savita 2014.08.02 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Jagvir Kaur and Anr. v. Naresh Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagvir Kaur and Anr. v. Naresh Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M)Mamo Devi and Ors. Vs Baljit Singh

Veerpal Kaur and Anr. Vs Jit Singh and Ors.

Ajaib Singh Vs Simarjit Kaur and Ors.

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

Balka Ram and Anr. Vs Prithi Singh and Ors.

Sandeep and Anr. Vs Kanchan @ Santosh Rani and Anr.