Dismissed

Deva and Ors. v. Jawahar Lal and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Feb 2023FAO/1434/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal following a fatal road accident. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly awarded consortium to the husband (as major sons are excluded by law) and the total compensation was just and in accordance with Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed for enhancement of compensation was dismissed; the impugned Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was affirmed.

Deva and Ors. Vs Jawahar Lal and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

FAO 1434/2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO 1434/2020

¶5

Date of decision:23/02/2023

¶6

Sh.Deva and others

¶7

………………Appellants Vs

¶8

Jawahar Lal and another

¶9

…………………Respondents

¶10

CORAM HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present:Mr. Ashok K. Sharma Bhana, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

Nidhi Gupta, J.

¶13

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.9,36,050/- granted vide Award dated 4.10.2019 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) passed in MACT Case No. 225/2018 filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

¶14

Ld. Tribunal on appraisal of pleadings and evidence before

¶15

it concluded that deceased Ms. Bala had died due to injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 18.10.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Zest XE QJET car bearing registration No. HR-

¶16

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.02.28 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

FAO 1434/2020

¶19

39S-6386 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), owned and driven by respondent no.1 and insured by respondent no.2 herein. Claimants/appellants herein are the husband, and two major sons of the deceased-Ms. Bala.

¶20

The only ground on which enhancement is being sought by the ld. Counsel for the appellants is that the ld. Tribunal has granted consortium only to appellant no.1 who is husband of the deceased and nothing has been granted by way of consortium to appellants no. 2 and 3 being major sons of the deceased. It is further submitted that compensation granted under the conventional heads is also on the lower side.

¶21

No other argument has been raised on behalf of the

¶22

appellants.

¶23

Heard ld. Counsel for the appellants.

¶24

Perusal of paras 45 and 46 of the impugned Award reveal that out of the compensation amount of Rs. 9,36,050/-, only Rs. 40,000/- has been given to appellant/ claimant no. 1/ husband of the deceased as consortium. The remaining claimants being appellants 2 and 3 herein, though are major sons of the deceased, have been “ held entitled to the remaining amount of compensation, in equal share” .

¶25

Further, as per law laid down by this Court in Harpal Kaur and others v Sita Ram and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 921104; Narender Nayyar v Sheodan Singh and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 626136; and Sajna Devi and others v Vijender Kumar and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 921100, major sons are not entitled to consortium.

¶26

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.02.28 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

Page 3 of 3

¶28

FAO 1434/2020

¶29

Further, perusal of the Award shows that Rs.15000/- has been granted towards funeral expenses, and Rs.15000/- towards loss of estate. Accordingly, I find no error in the impugned Award, and that the compensation granted by the ld. Tribunal is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, 2018 (18) SCC 130; Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) AIR (SC) 3104; and National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680.

¶30

No doubt Chapter-12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. All that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is “just”. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very “just” compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore does not warrant the interference of this Court. In case of KSRTC Versus Susamma Thomas 1994 Volume-II SCC 176 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation.

¶31

Dismissed.

¶32

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

23/02/2023 Joshi

¶34

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.02.28 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Deva and Ors. v. Jawahar Lal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deva and Ors. v. Jawahar Lal and Anr.

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

Amar Nath Vs Jagdev and Ors.

Amandeep Kaushal Vs Bikramjeet Kumar

Amandeep Kaushal Vs Bikramjeet Kumar

Paramjit Singh Vs Sucha Singh & Ors.

Krishan Vs Ram Pal & Ors.

Anita Sharma Vs Kulwinder Singh and Another