Partly allowed

Gurmeet Kaur and Ors. v. Chamkaur Khan and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2019FAO/5206/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. Court found son and married daughter not financial dependents but awarded consortium. For wife, court enhanced multiplier to 9 and future prospects to 15% and added loss of estate.

What did the court decide?

Modified award granted: Rs. 6,81,300 additional interest and loss of estate to main appellant; Rs. 40,000 consortium to sons and daughter-in-law.

Gurmeet Kaur and Ors. Vs Chamkaur Khan and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

FAO No. 5206 of 2018 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 05. 12. 2019

¶3

Gur meet Kaur and ot her s

¶4

…. . Appel l ant s

¶5

ver sus

¶6

Chamkaur Khan and ot her s

¶7

. . . . . Respondent s

¶8

CORAM: - HON' BLE MRS. JUSTI CE ALKA SARI N

¶9

Pr esent : Ms. Gur nam Kaur Tur ka, Advocat e f or t he appel l ant s

¶10

Mr . Deepak Sur i , Advocat e f or r espondent No. 3

¶11

ALKA SARI N, J. :

¶12

The pr esent appeal has been pr ef er r ed agai nst t he awar d dat ed 03. 11. 2017 passed by t he Mot or Acci dent Cl ai ms Tr i bunal , Pat i al a, par t l y al l owi ng t he cl ai m pet i t i on f i l ed by t he cl ai mant s/ appel l ant s her ei n.

¶13

A br i ef mat r i x of t he case i s st at ed her ei nunder .

¶14

I t i s st at ed by t he cl ai mant s i n t he cl ai m pet i t i on t hat on 21. 02. 2016 Ki r pal Si ngh, aged 57 ( si nce deceased) was goi ng al ong wi t h Gur meet Kaur , hi s wi f e, Kamal j i t Kaur al i as Kawal j i t Kaur and Par vi nder Si ngh f r om Pat i al a t o Mukt sar Sahi b i n hi s Swi f t Dezi r e car bear i ng r egi st r at i on No. PB11ZL( T) - 9573 whi ch was bei ng dr i ven by Par vi nder Si ngh al i as Par mi nder Si ngh at a nor mal speed on t he l ef t hand si de of t he r oad. I t was f ur t her st at ed t hat when t hey r eached l i t t l e ahead of Gur udwar a Par meshwar Sahi b near Vi l l age Shekupur a at about 6. 30 A. M. , a t r act or - t r ol l ey Swar aj 855 bear i ng

¶15

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.18 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

FAO- 5206- 2018

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

r egi st r at i on No. PB- 13AB- 9505, whi ch was bei ng dr i ven by r espondent No. 1 r ashl y and negl i gent l y, came speedi ng on t he wr ong si de of t he r oad and st r uck t hei r car . As a r esul t of t he acci dent , al l t he occupant s of t he car r ecei ved mul t i pl e gr i evous and si mpl e i nj ur i es and wer e t aken t o Raj i ndr a Hospi t al , Pat i al a. Dur i ng t he cour se of t he t r eat ment , Ki r pal Si ngh succumbed t o hi s i nj ur i es. FI R No. 23 dat ed 21. 02. 2016 was r egi st er ed under sect i ons 279, 337, 427 and 304- A of t he I ndi an Penal Code, 1860, at Pol i ce St at i on Passi ana, Di st r i ct Pat i al a.

¶19

The cl ai m pet i t i on was cont est ed by t he dr i ver and t he owner of t he t r act or - t r ol l ey as wel l as t he I nsur ance Company on usual gr ounds t hat t he acci dent never t ook pl ace and t he cl ai m pet i t i on was f al se. The I nsur ance Company addi t i onal l y r ai sed t he pl ea t hat t he dr i ver of t he car was not hol di ng a val i d dr i vi ng l i cence and t hat t he t r act or - t r ol l ey was not havi ng a val i d r out e per mi t and f i t ness cer t i f i cat e and was i nsur ed onl y f or agr i cul t ur al and f or est r y pur poses and, hence, t he I nsur ance Company was not l i abl e t o pay any compensat i on.

¶20

The Tr i bunal , af t er hear i ng t he par t i es and r ecor di ng evi dence, awar ded t he compensat i on t o appel l ant No. 1- Gur meet Kaur , wi f e of deceased Ki r pal Si ngh t o t he t une of Rs. 12, 27, 688/ - wi t h t he f ol l owi ng br eak- up: -

¶21

Sr . Head Compensat i on Awar ded No.

¶22

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.18 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

FAO- 5206- 2018

¶24

- 3 -

¶25

——

¶26

1. Annual dependency of ` 1, 77, 680/ - cl ai mant af t er deduct i on of 1/ 3 t owar ds per sonal expenses ——

¶27

1. Mul t i pl i er of 3 f or 5, 33, 040/ - ( 177680 x 3) t hr ee year s as deceased had t o r et i r e af t er t hr ee year s

¶28

1. Fut ur e pr ospect s @ ——— ` 53, 304/ - 10% ——

¶29

1. Cl ai mant woul d have ` 88, 840/ - been ent i t l ed t o hal f of t he i ncome assessed af t er r et i r ement of deceased ——

¶30

1. Mul t i pl i er of 6 5, 33, 040/ - ( 88840x6) 7. Fut ur e pr ospect s @ ——— ` 53, 304/ - 10%

¶31

1. Loss of consor t i um ——— 40, 000/ - 9. Funer al expenses ——— 15, 000/ - ——

¶32

1. Tot al compensat i on ` 12, 27, 688/ -

¶33

Qua appel l ant Nos. 2 and 3, a f i ndi ng was r et ur ned by t he Tr i bunal t hat appel l ant No. 2 Kul wi nder Si ngh was not a dependent of deceased Ki r pal Si ngh, i nasmuch as, he has st at ed i n hi s evi dence t hat he i s an agr i cul t ur i st and owns 13 acr es of l and and, t her ef or e, coul d not be hel d t o be dependent on deceased Ki r pal Si ngh. Qua Kamal j i t Kaur , t he Tr i bunal has r et ur ned a f i ndi ng t hat she was mar r i ed and, hence, coul d not be hel d t o be dependent on deceased Ki r pal Si ngh.

¶34

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.18 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

FAO- 5206- 2018

¶36

- 4 -

¶37

I have hear d l ear ned counsel f or t he par t i es and wi t h t hei r abl e assi st ance per used t he r ecor d.

¶38

Lear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant s has pr i mar i l y assai l ed t he f i ndi ngs of t he Tr i bunal on t he gr ound t hat appel l ant Nos. 2 and 3 have wr ongl y been deni ed compensat i on. He has ar gued t hat bei ng son and daught er of deceased Ki r pal Si ngh, t hey wer e al so ent i t l ed f or compensat i on. The ot her gr ounds on whi ch t he f i ndi ngs have been assai l ed ar e t hat t he Tr i bunal commi t t ed a gr ave er r or i n assessi ng t he i ncome of t he deceased. I t i s st at ed t hat t he deceased owned 13 acr es of l and f r om whi ch he had agr i cul t ur al i ncome, whi ch has not been t aken i nt o account whi l e assessi ng t he compensat i on.

¶39

Per cont r a , l ear ned counsel f or t he I nsur ance Company submi t t ed t hat t her e i s no mer i t i n t he appeal and, t hus, t her e i s no scope f or enhancement and t he appeal deser ves t o be di smi ssed.

¶40

Deal i ng wi t h t he cl ai m of appel l ant Nos. 2 and 3, I am of t he consi der ed opi ni on t hat r espondent No. 2, son of deceased Ki r pal Si ngh, was aged about 31 year s at t he t i me of t he acci dent . He whi l e appear i ng as PW1, has admi t t ed i n hi s cr oss- exami nat i on t hat he i s an agr i cul t ur i st . He f ur t her admi t t ed t hat he owns 13 acr es of l and. I t possi bl y cannot be hel d by any st r et ch of i magi nat i on t hat Kul wi nder Si ngh, appel l ant No. 2, was dependent upon hi s f at her . As per hi s own admi ssi on i n hi s cr oss- exami nat i on, he i s an agr i cul t ur i st and owns 13 acr es of l and t her eby admi t t i ng t hat he had an i ndependent sour ce of i ncome. That bei ng so, appel l ant No. 2 cannot be hel d t o be a dependent on Ki r pal Si ngh ( deceased) .

¶41

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.18 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

FAO- 5206- 2018

¶43

- 5 -

¶44

Appel l ant No. 2, bei ng son of deceased Ki r pal Si ngh, woul d, however , be ent i t l ed t o Par ent al Consor t i um of Rs. 40, 000/ - .

¶45

As r egar ds, appel l ant No. 3- Kamal j i t Kaur @ Kawal j i t Kaur , i t i s an admi t t ed posi t i on t hat she i s mar r i ed and l i vi ng wi t h her husband and, t her ef or e, she t oo cannot be hel d t o be a dependent of t he deceased Ki r pal Si ngh. However , she woul d al so be ent i t l ed t o Par ent al Consor t i um of Rs. 40, 000/ - .

¶46

Now comi ng t o t he cl ai m of appel l ant No. 1, i t has been submi t t ed by l ear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant s t hat t he Tr i bunal has gr ossl y er r ed i n spl i t t i ng mul t i pl i er i nt o 3 and 6 and, f ur t her , by gr ant i ng f ut ur e pr ospect s @ 10% onl y. I t i s ar gued t hat i t has been pr oved on t he r ecor d t hat deceased Ki r pal Si ngh was dr awi ng a f i xed sal ar y and hi s t ake- home sal ar y was Rs. 22, 210/ - . That bei ng so, as per t he l aw l ai d . down by t he Supr eme Cour t i n Nat i onal I nsur ance Company Lt d vs. Pr anay Set hi and ot her s, ( 2017) ( 16) Supr eme Cour t Cases 680 at l east 15% shoul d have been added t owar ds f ut ur e pr ospect s i nst ead of 10%, as awar ded by t he Tr i bunal . I t has al so been submi t t ed by l ear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant s t hat no compensat i on has been awar ded t owar ds l oss of est at e.

¶47

I am of t he consi der ed opi ni on t hat t hough t he Tr i bunal has r el i ed upon t he j udgment of t he Apex Cour t i n Smt . Sar l a Ver ma and ot her s vs. Del hi Tr anspor t Cor por at i on and anot her , 2009( 6) Supr eme Cour t Cases 121 and Pr anay Set hi ( supr a) but has er r ed whi l e cal cul at i ng t he compensat i on payabl e t o appel l ant No. 1. As per l aw l ai d down i n Sar l a Ver ma ( supr a) , t he cor r ect mul t i pl i er t o be appl i ed i n t he pr esent case woul d be 9, si nce t he deceased was 57 year s of age at t he

¶48

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.18 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

FAO- 5206- 2018

¶50

- 6 -

¶51

t i me of acci dent . Al so, f ut ur e pr ospect s ought t o have been added t o t he ext ent of 15% of t he dependency assessed. I al so f i nd t hat t he Tr i bunal has not awar ded any amount t owar ds l oss of est at e. I , t her ef or e, deem i t j ust and pr oper t o modi f y t he awar d of t he Tr i bunal and awar d t he compensat i on t o appel l ant No. 1 as under : -

¶52

Sr . Head Compensat i on Awar ded No. ——

¶53

1. Annual ear ni ngs of 2, 66, 520/ - deceased ( mont hl y i ncome 22210x12) ——

¶54

1. Annual dependency of ` 1, 77, 680/ - cl ai mant af t er deduct i on of 1/ 3 t owar ds per sonal expenses

¶55

1. Annual dependency ——— ` 2, 04, 332/ - af t er addi ng f ut ur e pr ospect s @ 15% of annual dependency ——

¶56

1. Mul t i pl i er of 9 18, 38, 988/ - ( 204332 x 9) 5. Loss of spousal ——— ` 40, 000/ - consor t i um

¶57

1. Funer al expenses ——— 15, 000/ - 7. Loss of est at e ——— 15000/ - ——

¶58

1. Tot al compensat i on ` 19, 08, 988/ -

¶59

I n vi ew of t he above di scussi on, appel l ant No. 1 woul d be ent i t l ed t o an amount of Rs. 6, 81, 300/ - over and above t he amount awar ded by t he Tr i bunal al ong wi t h si x per cent per annum i nt er est f r om t he dat e of f i l i ng of t he cl ai m pet i t i on

¶60

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.18 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶61

FAO- 5206- 2018

¶62

- 7 -

¶63

t i l l i t s r eal i sat i on. Appel l ant Nos. 2 and 3 woul d be ent i t l ed t o an amount of Rs. 40, 000/ - each t owar ds l oss of Par ent al Consor t i um. The amount of compensat i on woul d be pai d by r espondent Nos. 1 t o 3 j oi nt l y and sever al l y. The awar d of t he Tr i bunal st ands modi f i ed i n t he above- st at ed t er ms.

¶64

Appeal accor di ngl y st ands di sposed of .

¶65

( ALKA SARI N) JUDGE

¶66

1. 2019 par kash

¶67

NOTE: Whet her speaki ng/ non- speaki ng: Speaki ng Whet her r epor t abl e: YES/ NO

¶68

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.18 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurmeet Kaur and Ors. v. Chamkaur Khan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmeet Kaur and Ors. v. Chamkaur Khan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurcharan Kaur Vs Nirvair Singh Chakal & Ors.

M/S Sandeep Rice Mills Vs Food Corporation of India

Tokh Ram and Ors. Vs Zile Singh Since Deceased through Lrs and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs Chuhar Singh and Others

Arun Kumar Vs Anita & Ors.

Meharban Singh and Ors. Vs Vikram Singh and Anr.