Dismissed

Dhanra Devi and Ors. v. Karam Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2017FAO/9554/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident claim appeal, the High Court dismissed the appellants' challenge to the Tribunal's application of a multiplier of 9. The Court noted the post-mortem report stated the deceased was 56 years old, negating the claim for an 11-year multiplier, and found no merit in the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no enhancement in the award.

Dhanra Devi and Ors. Vs Karam Singh and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

F.A.O No. 9554 of 2014

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

F.A.O No. 9554 of 2014 Date of Decision: 08.5.2017

¶5

Dhanra Devi and others

¶6

......Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Karam Singh and others .....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

¶10

Present: Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellants.

¶11

Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for the insurance company.

¶12

¶13

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J

¶14

This is the claimants' appeal seeking enhancement in the award dated 15.9.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

¶15

Shiv Pujan aged 56 years met with an accident on 20.6.2012. The Tribunal had taken his income reflected in his income tax returns. A deduction of 1/3^rd was made. An addition of 15% was allowed towards future prospects and annual contribution to the family was calculated as Rs. 1,24,775/-. The multiplier of 9 was applied to calculate the loss. In addition to this, claimants No. 2 and 3 were allowed Rs. 50,000/- each for loss of love and affection. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses. The total amount allowed was Rs. 13,48,000/-.

¶16

The submission on behalf of the appellants is that correct

¶17

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2017.05.16 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

F.A.O No. 9554 of 2014

¶19

-2-

¶20

multiplier was not applied and the deceased was 55 years old and the multiplier of 11 should have been applied.

¶21

The submission on the other hand was that in the post-mortem report, the age was mentioned as 56, therefore, the multiplier was correctly applied.

¶22

It is not disputed that in the post-mortem report the age was shown as 56. No evidence was led to show that the deceased was 55 years of age. Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal. The appellants had been adequately compensated on all the heads.

¶23

No other issue was raised.

¶24

The appeal is dismissed.

¶25

(ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE

¶26

May 08, 2017 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

¶27

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2017.05.16 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Dhanra Devi and Ors. v. Karam Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanra Devi and Ors. v. Karam Singh 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

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sumitra and Anr.

Smt. Debo Vs Labh Chand

Mukesh(Minor) Vs Ram Singh and Others

Jaswinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Daljit Singh and Ors.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pohli Devi and Ors.

Pritam Kaur Vs Lok Sewak Bus P.Ltd.& Ors.