Insurance Company appealed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. High Court dismissed appeal, holding Tribunal correctly assessed deceased as permanent employee with 50% future income addition and 1/4th personal expense deduction for six dependents.
Appeal dismissed; Tribunal award of Rs. 19,55,900/- affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FAO No.6621 of 2014 (O&M)
[ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.6621 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 27, 2014
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Smt.Neetu & Ors.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr.Tajender K.Joshi, Advocate, for the appellant.
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. (Oral)
The appellant-Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal challenging the Award dated 21.04.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal, (hereinafter referred to “learned Tribunal”) whereby an amount of ` 19,55,900/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization was awarded to the claimants (six in numbers).
Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following arguments:-
The claimants have failed to substantiate that Dalbir Singh (since deceased) was a permanent employee, therefore, addition of 50% of his income as future prospects is against law;
Ranbir (father), Ms.Geeta and Annu (sisters) of Dalbir Singh (since deceased) were not entitled to the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal; and
SEEMA RANI 2014.09.08 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
FAO No.6621 of 2014 (O&M)
[ 2 ]
The deduction of 1/4th from the income of the deceased for personal expenses was on lower side, in fact, 1/3rd should have been deducted from the income of Dalbir Singh as personal expenses.
Brief facts of the case are that on 03.01.2013 at about 7.00/7.15 p.m, Dalbir Singh (since deceased) was coming on foot from HPL Additives Limited, Dudhola, towards his village Amru. In the meantime, the offending vehicle, i.e Eicher Canter bearing No.HR-38Q-2296, being driven by Sanjay in a rash or negligent manner and at a high speed came from village Amru and hit Dalbir Singh (since deceased) resulting into his death. The matter was reported to the police on the basis of which FIR No.10 dated 04.01.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC, was registered against Sanjay at Police Station, Sadar, Palwal.
The claimants pleaded that Dalbir Singh (since deceased) was of 25 years age on the date of accident. He was employed as worker in HPL Additives Limited, Dudhola, and getting a salary of 7,967/- per month. In addition thereto, he was performing agricultural work also and was earning 8,000/- per month. The claimants also averred that an amount of 20,000/was spent on the transportation and last rites of Dalbir Singh (since deceased). It was also averred in the claim petition that Smt.Neetu (widow), Naitik (minor son), Smt.Sukkhan (mother), Ranbir (father), and Ms.Geeta and Annu (sisters) of Dalbir Singh (since deceased) were entirely dependent upon the earnings of Dalbir Singh (since deceased). The claimants claimed 35,00,000/- along with interest
SEEMA RANI 2014.09.08 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
FAO No.6621 of 2014 (O&M)
[ 3 ]
at the rate of 18% per annum.
On appearance, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle in their joint written statement denied the accident.
The appellant-Insurance Company did not deny the factum of accident, however, pleaded that it was a case of hit and run accident but the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. It was also pleaded that the offending vehicle was being plied against the terms of valid permit and its driver was not possessing a valid driving licence, therefore, the appellantInsurance Company was not liable to satisfy the award.
On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed:-
To prove claimants' case, Smt. Neetu (widow of Dalbir
SEEMA RANI 2014.09.08 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
[ 4 ]
FAO No.6621 of 2014 (O&M)
Singh) appeared as PW-5 and reiterated the facts as enumerated in the claim petition. Anuj Kumar, Criminal Ahlamd, appeared as PW1; Harish Kumar, Headmaster, Government Primary School, AmruPalal, as PW-2, Kuldeep Singh Assistant Personnel HRM of HPL Additives Limited, Dudhola, as PW-3 and Jal Singh, an eye witness of the occurrence, was examined as PW4. After tendering certain documents, the claimants closed their evidence.
The respondents did not lead any evidence.
Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimants by holding that Sanjay (driver of the offending vehicle) was author of the accident resulting into death of Dalbir Singh.
Issue Nos.2, 3 and 4 were collectively dealt with by the learned Tribunal and after analysing the material available on record, it was held that Dalbir Singh (since deceased) was of 24 years age on the date of accident; he was working in HPL Additives Limited, Dudhola, and was getting a sum of 7,967/- per month as gross salary on the date of accident; in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of <u>Sarla Verma</u> vs. <u>Delhi Transport Corporation,</u> (2009)7 SCC 121 and <u>Santosh Devi</u> vs. <u>National Insurance Company Limited and Others, 2012 STPL(Web)</u> 248, 50% of the monthly income was liable to be added in the income of the deceased; the dependents were six in number, therefore, 1/4<sup>th</sup> deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased were to be deducted; and the multiplier of 18 was to be applied. It was also held that Smt.Neetu (widow of Dalbir Singh) was also entitled to a sum of 10,000/- as consortium in addition to a sum of ` 10,000/- on account of transportation and last rites of
SEEMA RANI 2014.09.08 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
[ 5 ]
FAO No.6621 of 2014 (O&M)
the deceased and as such, the claimants were entitled to `19,55,900/- as compensation.
While dealing with the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is apposite to refer to the deposition of PW3-Kuldeep Singh, Assistant Personnel, HRM of HPL Additives Limited, Dudhola, (copy of the statement supplied by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments and which is taken on record as Mark C-1). In his crossexamination, it had specifically been deposed that Dalbir Singh (since deceased) was permanent employee. In examination-inchief. Kuldeep Singh (PW3) had deposed that Dalbir Singh was appointed on regular basis. After going through the deposition of PW3, learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that Dalbir Singh was a permanent employee of M/s HPL Additives Limited, Dudhola. In the matter of Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., 2013(3) RCR(Civil) 170, a three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that even a person who had no fix permanent income is also entitled to addition of income as future prospects according to his age and circumstances. In Sarla Verma 's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that in case the deceased was of 25 years age and had permanent income from his salary, then his dependents would be entitled to addition of 50% of his income as future prospects while calculating the award. In view of the above, there is no substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has wrongly added 50% of the income of deceased Dalbir Singh as future prospects while calculating the amount of award.
SEEMA RANI 2014.09.08 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
FAO No.6621 of 2014 (O&M)
[ 6 ]
The second argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal committed illegality while deducting 1/4th of the income of Dalbir Singh as personal expenses instead of 1/3rd . This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is also against the law settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma 's case (supra) wherein it was held that if the claimants are more than four in numbers, then the deduction as personal expenses should be 1/4th . In the present case, the claim petition has been filed by the widow, minor son, parents and two sisters of the deceased. The learned Tribunal held that all the claimants were dependents on the earnings of Dalbir Singh (since deceased), therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th of the income as personal expenses of Dalbir Singh (since deceased) and, as such, this argument is also held to be not tenable.
In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
August 27, 2014 seema
(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge
SEEMA RANI 2014.09.08 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether adding 50% of the deceased's income as future prospects was legally tenable for a permanent employee of 25 years.
Whether deduction of only 1/4th of income for personal expenses was correct given six dependent claimants.
Whether the Insurance Company's appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award had merit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport CorporationApplied¶48
Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 7 SCC 121 · Who else cites this
Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company LimitedApplied¶43
Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, 2012 STPL(Web) 248
Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors.Referred¶48
Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., 2013(3) RCR(Civil) 170
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.
Smt. Neetu & Ors.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
