This appeal sought enhancement of motor accident compensation. The Court upheld the claimants' request, citing National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi. It ordered an increase of Rs. 2,69,000 and 9% interest.
Enhancement of compensation by Rs. 2,69,000 and interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing.
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.
F.A.O No. 7304 of 2015 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O No. 7304 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision:- 22.01.2018
Angrej Singh and ors.
...Appellants
Versus
Surjit Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant
Ms Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company.
RITU BAHRI J. (Oral)
C.M. No. 22917-CII-2015
For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 189 days
on behalf of applicant-appellant No. 1 and 209 days on behalf of applicantappellant No. 2 in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
F.A.O No. 7340-2015
Gaurav Arora 2018.02.01 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
-2-
F.A.O No. 7304 of 2015 (O&M)
came from behind and hit the activa, as a result of which both the occupants of the activa fell on the road. The deceased Daljit Kaur died on the spot and Surjit Singh received multiple injuries as he fell down on the katcha portion of the road. F.I.R No. 83 dated 02.02.2012 was also registered in this regard at P.S. Civil Lines, Karnal under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC.
and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) Page 77. The claimants were awarded Rs.10000/- for the last rites. The total compensation awarded to the claimant was Rs.04,06,000/-.
record.
Gaurav Arora 2018.02.01 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
F.A.O No. 7304 of 2015 (O&M)
-3-
“54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/-loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Gaurav Arora 2018.02.01 11:36 Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
-4-
F.A.O No. 7304 of 2015 (O&M)
said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be factcentric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.” .
7. In the present case, the compensation is being reassessed as per
the judgments mentioned above:-
| Sr. No. |
Heads | Calculations |
|---|---|---|
| (i) | Salary | Rs.5000/- per month (notional income) |
| (ii) | Compensation after multiplier of 11 is applied |
Rs.5000 X 12 X 11= Rs.06,60,000/- |
| (v) | Conventional heads funeral expenses) |
Rs.15,000/- |
| Total Compensation awarded | Rs.06,75,000/- | |
| Enhanced amount of compensation |
Rs.06,75,000-Rs.04,06,000=Rs.2,69,000/- |
22.01.2018 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
Gaurav Arora 2018.02.01 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal deserves enhancement.
Whether the conventional heads of compensation should be revised based on recent Supreme Court judgments.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport CorporationRelied on¶25
Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) Page 77
Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and othersRelied on¶27
Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 (9) SCC 54 · Who else cites this
Munna Lal Jain and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and othersRelied on¶27
Munna Lal Jain and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015(3) Recent Apex Judgments 459
Asha Verman and others vs. Maharaj Singh and othersRelied on¶27
Asha Verman and others vs. Maharaj Singh and others, 2015(2) RCR (Civil) 520
Kalpanaraj and others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport CorporationRelied on¶27
Kalpanaraj and others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 2015(2) SCC (Civil) 193 · Who else cites this
National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and othersFollowed¶34
National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, passed in Spl Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on October 31, 2017
Kumari Kiran through her father Harinarayan vs. Sajjan Singh and othersFollowed¶42
Kumari Kiran through her father Harinarayan vs. Sajjan Singh and others, 2015(1) SCC 539 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Angrej Singh and ors.
Surjit Singh and others
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
