Partly allowed

(O&M) Geeta etc. v. Ved Parkash Etc/

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jan 2018FAO/2367/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award sought higher compensation. The High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents to enhance the award, granting future prospects, adjusting self-expense deductions, and adding conventional heads of damage.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,92,000/- to Rs.5,19,820/- including interest at 6% per annum.

(O&M) Geeta etc. Vs Ved Parkash Etc/ — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

FAO No. 2367 of 2003 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No. 2367 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.01.2018

Geeta and others

.... Appellants

Versus

Ved Parkash and others

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

¶11

Present : Mr.Ajit Kumar Sharma, Advocate for Mr. R.D.Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

Mr.R.N.Singal, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

¶13

¶14

Avneesh Jhingan, J.

¶15

The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 14.03.2003 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal').

¶16

On 03.08.2001, Jag Mohan, aged 30 years, was standing on the kachha portion of the road, when a rashly and negligently driven TATA 407 bearing registration No.DL-IL/A-0597 (for short, 'the offending vehicle') struck him. He received multiple injuries including head injury. He was shifted to Kalyani Hospital, Gurgaon where he succumbed to his injuries. FIR No.207 dated 04.08.2001 was registered at Police Station Sohna.

¶17

Anju 2018.01.20 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court chandigarh

¶18

FAO No. 2367 of 2003 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') was filed by the widow, three children and parents of the deceased.

¶21

The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,92,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

¶22

The present appeal has been filed against the award for enhancement of compensation.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the paper book and relevant documents produced by them.

¶24

The parties have not disputed the facts regarding involvement of the offending vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, age of the deceased, multiplier applied and the earning assessed of the deceased by the Tribunal.

¶25

The grievance raised in the appeal is that no future prospects have been awarded. The Tribunal erred in making deduction of 1/3^rd for self expenses as the deceased was survived by six dependants. Further, the grievance is that the amounts awarded for funeral expenses and loss of consortium are on the lower side and no amount has been awarded for loss of estate.

¶26

The contentions raised in the appeal deserve acceptance inspite of the resistance by the Insurance Company.

¶27

The issues raised are duly supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 77 and National

¶28

Anju 2018.01.20 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High court chandigarh

¶29

-3-

¶30

FAO No. 2367 of 2003 (O&M)

¶31

Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. in SLP (Civil) No.25590 of 2014 decided on 31.10.2017 wherein it was held that where the deceased was below 40 years of age and self employed or having fixed salary, 40% future prospects are to be awarded.

¶32

The Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd.'s case (supra) has held that the amount of Rs.70,000/- is to be awarded under the conventional heads i.e Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.15,000/for funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium.

¶33

In Sarla Verma's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where the deceased is survived by 4 to 6 dependants, 1/4^th deduction for self expenses is to be made.

¶34

For the reasons mentioned above and the decisions cited above,

¶35

the compensation is recalculated as under :-

¶36

Annual income	Rs.25,200/-
Add 40% futureprospects	Rs.10,080/-
Total income	Rs.35,280/-
1/4^thdeduction for self expenses	Rs.8,820/-
Dependency	Rs.26,460/-
Applyingmultiplier of 17	Rs.4,49,820/-
Funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-
Loss of estate	Rs.15,000/-
Loss of consortium	Rs.40,000/-
Total	Rs.5,19,820/-