Allowed

Sandeep Kaur v. Sarbjit Singh etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2014FAO/5216/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an appeal to enhance motor accident compensation from ₹3,67,000 to ₹20,00,000. The court found the Tribunal's reliance on a minimal income figure erroneous, disregarding evidence of the deceased's high monthly earnings in Canada and permanent residency. Compensation was increased to meet the claimed amount including loss of dependence, consortium, and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Award increased to ₹2,00,00,000. Interest at 7.5% levied on excess amount from petition date till payment.

Sandeep Kaur Vs Sarbjit Singh etc. — Consumer Protection | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

FAO No.5216 of 2003

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.5216 of 2003 Date of Decision.03.07.2014

¶5

Sandeep Kaur widow of Shri Amrik Singh

¶6

......Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sarabjit Singh and others ......Respondents

¶9

Present: Mr. Balbir Kumar Saini, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for the insurance company.

¶11

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶12

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

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

-.-

¶16

K. KANNAN J.

¶17

The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for a male aged 24 years. The accident had taken place when the deceased was driving his own maruti car on 28.08.2001. He was an employee of a sawmill at Canada and a salary certificate issued by the employer had also been filed. It was merely assigned a mark 'B' and it showed that he had an income of ` 70,000/- per month. There was also an interrogatory filed before the Tribunal to seek for information directly from the employer regarding his employment status and his earning. He had secured employment in saw mill in Shakeland Wood Processors, Canada and it was perhaps not justified that the Tribunal did not allow for the basic evidence to be placed in the manner sought for. The deceased was a Canadian citizen and he also had a permanent driving licence. Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.07.03 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

-2-

¶19

FAO No.5216 of 2003

¶20

The Tribunal had merely taken the income of the deceased at 3,000/- per month and granted compensation of 3,67,000/- to the widow. I think the assessment to compensation has been grossly low and does not accord with the quality of evidence which was placed. If he was a permanent citizen of Canada and there was also evidence that he had a secured employment, there was no reason to discard the evidence given by the petitioner and take the income only at 3,000/per month. There was evidence by the widow that he used to remit about 30,000/- to 40,000/- per month. I cannot find even this amount to be very high. We must provide for 30,000/- as contribution to his wife per month considering his affluent status and his own ownership of a car at the time when he had come to India and if we must even apply for multiplier of 15 instead of usual 18 multiplier, considering the fact that he was earning income in foreign currency, the loss of dependence would far exceed the amount which has been sought for in the petition as compensation. We will have also to provide adequately for loss of consortium and loss to estate as well as funeral expenses. If we must work out the sums in the manner suggested by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) SCC 121 , I would find that the compensation assessed should be not less than the amount which has been claimed in the petition. The petitioner has claimed ` 20 lacs which is appropriate and just.

¶21

There shall be an award for ` 20 lacs in the manner sought for by the petitioner. The amount in excess over what has already been provided by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @7.5% from the date

¶22

of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be on the Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.07.03 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

-3-

¶24

FAO No.5216 of 2003

¶25

insurance company as already assessed by the Tribunal.

¶26

The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the

¶27

above extent.

¶28

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶29

July 03, 2014 Pankaj*

¶30

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.07.03 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Sandeep Kaur v. Sarbjit Singh etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kaur v. Sarbjit Singh etc.

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

(O&M) Lajwanti Vs Baljit Singh

Smt Mandeep Kaur and Ors. Vs Bahadur Singh and Ors.

(O&M)Krishna Vs Surbhi Gupta

Jogider Singh Vs Dewan Chand

Bohti Devi and Ors. Vs Bhag Singh and Ors.

Mego Devi and Ors. Vs Sawarn Singh and Ors.