Dismissed

Bala Devi and Anr. v. Surjeet Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Mar 2023FAO/3219/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 6.06 lacs, rejecting claims that notional agricultural income was ignored and funeral expenses were excessive. The Court held that agricultural income is not part of 'notional' income for compensation as the land and cattle survive the death. The compensation deemed 'just'.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was barred by the grounds stated, and the impugned award of compensation was declared just and fair, preventing any enhancement.

Bala Devi and Anr. Vs Surjeet Singh and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

Page 1 of 5

¶2

FAO 3419/2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:037612

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO 3419/2022 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision:01/03/2023

¶6

Tejinder Singh and others

¶7

………………Appellants

¶8

Vs.

¶9

National Insurance Company Limited and others

¶10

…………………Respondents

¶11

CORAM HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶12

Present:Mr. Umesh Kumar Kanwar, Advocate for the appellants.

¶13

Nidhi Gupta, J.

¶14

CM 9611-CII/2022.

¶15

Since there is delay of 1498 days in filing the present appeal, aforesaid application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of said delay.

¶16

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed

¶17

and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶18

Main Appeal.

¶19

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.6,06,000/- granted vide Award dated RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.03.10 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

FAO 3419/2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:037612

¶22

27.2.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MACP No.69/2017 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Claimants/appellants are major brothers and sister of the deceased Satnam Singh.

¶23

Ld. Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and evidence before it concluded that the deceased Satnam Singh had died due to injuries received by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 28.1.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of Zen Car bearing Registration NO. PB07-R-2462 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent no.2, owned by respondent no.3 and insured by respondent no.1 herein. Ld. Tribunal granted compensation as above along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. The driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation.

¶24

It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the claimants that the compensation awarded deserves to be enhanced as the deceased was earning Rs.49,500/- per month as he was doing agriculture farming and dairy farming. It is submitted that despite the fact that cogent evidence was led before the Tribunal with regard to income of the deceased, his income has been assessed as only Rs.6000/- per month. It is further submitted that nothing has been granted by way of future prospects.

¶25

It is further submitted that deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased was also excessive as he was not spending much money upon himself and he was very ambitious person. It is also stated that interest has been awarded @ 7.5% per annum whereas RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.03.10 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Page 3 of 5

FAO 3419/2022 (O&M)

2023:PHHC:037612

the same should be 9% per annum. It is also submitted that only Rs.15,000/-

¶30

has been awarded towards funeral expenses whereas, appellants have spent

¶31

more than Rs.1.5 lacs on last rites and funeral expenses of the deceased.

¶32

No other argument has been raised on behalf of the

¶33

appellants.

¶34

Heard ld. Counsel for the appellants.

¶35

Ld. Tribunal has calculated the compensation payable to the

¶36

appellants in the following manner: -

¶37

	Fatal Accident
	Date of accident	28.01.2017
Age	33years
Occupation and income	Labour	Rs.72,000/- p.a.
Sr.No.	Heads of claim	Amount (Rs.)
1	Monthly income	6000/-
2	Total annual income	72,000/-
3	Deduction1/2 (being unmarried)	72000-36,000= 36,000/-
4	Multiplicand (annualized)	36,000/-
5	Multiplier	36,000/- x 16 = 5,76,000/-
6	Loss of love and affection to claimants.	15,000/-
7	Funeral expenses	15,000/-
8	Total	6,06,000/-

¶38

Perusal of the record shows that ld. Tribunal took the age of

¶39

the deceased to be 33 years as per his Post Mortem Report Ex. P7. As the

¶40

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI appellants did not produce any documentary evidence in support of their 2023.03.10 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

Page 4 of 5

¶42

FAO 3419/2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:037612

¶43

contention that the deceased had any income from agriculture or dairy farming, and even no documentary proof was produced to show that the deceased owned any agriculture land, ld. Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- per month. Since deceased was admittedly bachelor at the time of his death, deduction of 50% was made towards personal and living expenses. Multiplier of 16 was applied as deceased was 33 years at time of death; and therefore, the total dependency was calculated as Rs.5.76 lacs. Rs. 15,000/- each was awarded towards loss of love and affection and funeral expenses respectively.

¶44

In my view, argument of the ld. Counsel for the appellants that income from agriculture was not considered while computing income of the deceased does not bear scrutiny as, it is established legal position that income from agriculture and dairy farming is not included while assessing notional income for the purpose of computing compensation payable to claimants under the Act, as claimants are not deprived of either the land or milch cattle and therefore, said income from said sources continues even after the death of the deceased. Thus, there is no loss of agriculture or dairy farming income. Accordingly, I find no error in the assessment of notional income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- per month. Further, deceased being bachelor at the time of his death, 50% deduction has rightly been made by the ld. Tribunal. Claimants being major brothers and sister are not Class I legal heirs. Even compensation awarded under the conventional heads is just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶45

I find no error in the assessment of compensation made by the ld. Tribunal, as noticed above. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme

¶46

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.03.10 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

Page 5 of 5

¶48

FAO 3419/2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:037612

¶49

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.

¶50

For the reasons stated above, finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby, dismissed.

¶51

01/03/2023 Joshi

¶52

(Nidhi Gupta) Judge

¶53

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No

¶54

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.03.10 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Bala Devi and Anr. v. Surjeet Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bala Devi and Anr. v. Surjeet Singh 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

Madan Mohan Soi and Others Vs Harbans Lal and Others

Karamjit Kaur Vs Vikas Kumar

Durgesh Jain Vs Tushar Singla

Bant Singh @ Bant Vs Sarwan Singh and Another

Mohar Singh etc. Vs Bhai Balwinder Singh Sewa Panthi

Steven Simon Elliott Alias Sardeep Singh Grewal Vs Surjit Singh Grewal (Since Deceased through Its Alleged Lrs) and Others