Dismissed

Kamla Devi and Others v. Balraj and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Apr 2023FAO/2506/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation, the High Court upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 12,79,600. The Court rejected the claim for higher filial consortium, noting Rs. 40,000 was already included in conventional heads, and affirmed that compensation must be just and reasonable to prevent windfall profits.

What did the court decide?

The appeal seeking enhancement of compensation was dismissed. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was upheld.

Kamla Devi and Others Vs Balraj and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:057794 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 260 FAO-2506-2020 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.04.2023

¶3

Kamla Devi & Others

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Balraj & Others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶9

Present:Mr. Karan Vir Singh, Advocate for the appellants. ***

¶10

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶11

CM-6694-CII-2020

¶12

This is an applica�on under Sec�on 5 of the Limita�on Act, 1963 seeking condona�on of delay of 33 days in filing the appeal.

¶13

A*er going through the contents of the applica�on, the same is allowed subject to all just excep�ons.

¶14

MAIN CASE

¶15

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensa�on of Rs.12,79,600/- granted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (hereinaer referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 06.09.2019 passed in MACP 09 of 2019 filed under Sec�ons 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinaer referred to as “the Act”). Claimants are parents and sister of deceasedAshok Kumar.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Ashok Kumar had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 05.12.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registra�on No.HR-64A-7833 (hereina*er referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. Learned Tribunal awarded compensa�on as above along with

¶17

SUNENA 2023.04.26 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

2023:PHHC:057794 2

¶19

interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the pe��on �ll realisa�on.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensa�on on the ground that nothing has been granted to the appellants by way of filial consor�um. It is also submiBed that appellants are en�tled to compensa�on of Rs.50 lakh along with interest @ 18%

¶21

per annum.

¶22

No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

¶24

Perusal of impugned Award shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that prior to his death, the deceased was doing grocery business along with his father and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. However, as no evidence of income was produced by the appellants before the learned Tribunal or this Court, accordingly, learned Tribunal rightly assessed no�onal income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month on the basis of relevant Minimum

¶25

Wage no�fica�on.

¶26

As the deceased was bachelor, learned Tribunal correctly made deduc�on of 50%. As deceased was 33 years of age at the �me of death, learned Tribunal correctly made addi�on of 40% towards future prospects, thus, taking monthly income of the deceased to Rs.6,300/-. Learned Tribunal correctly applied mul�plier of 16, thus calcula�ng total loss of dependency to be Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.6,300/- x 12 x 16). Learned Tribunal then awarded Rs.70,000/- towards conven�onal heads. Thus, total compensa�on as awarded comes to Rs.12,79,600/-.

¶27

From the above, it is clear that conten�on on behalf of the appellants that nothing has been granted towards filial consor�um is incorrect, as learned Tribunal has granted Rs.70,000/- under the conven�onal heads which includes Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate; Rs. 40,000/- towards consor�um and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶28

SUNENA 2023.04.26 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

2023:PHHC:057794 3

¶30

Further, as per latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No.2410-2412 of 2023 :tled as “Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Singh Rawat & Others date of order 27.03.2023 , Their Lordships have held that in conformity with judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Na�onal Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680’, total consor�um of Rs.40,000/- has to be awarded; and not that consor�um of Rs.40,000/- each has to be granted to each of the claimants. No judgment to the contrary has been cited by learned counsel for the appellants.

¶31

Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, I find no case is made out that merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the compensa�on awarded to the appellants to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legisla�on yet, as cau�oned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Moreover, compensa�on awarded upon the death of a near and dear loved one cannot be made a market nego�a�on, where every penny has to be calculated and drawn. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur, (1999) 1 SCC 90 and Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev SheAy, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensa�on should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same �me it should not be a piBance. Thus, all that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensa�on accorded is ‘just’. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very ‘just’ compensa�on, 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 Vs. 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 compensa�on.

¶32

SUNENA 2023.04.26 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

2023:PHHC:057794 4

¶34