Dismissed

Darshan Kaur and Ors. v. Subhash Chand and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2023FAO/904/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation. The court held that agricultural income need not be considered as heirs retain the land, rejected claims for major sons without proof of dependency, and found the Tribunal's award just and fair.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; condonation of delay allowed subject to exceptions.

Darshan Kaur and Ors. Vs Subhash Chand and Anr. — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:041356

¶2

�

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 263 FAO-904-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.03.2023

¶4

Darshan Kaur & Others

¶5

...Appellant(s)

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Subhash Chand & Another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶8

Present:Mr. Mikhail Kad, Advocate for the appellants. ***

¶9

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶10

CM-2847-CII-2022

¶11

This is an applica�on under Sec�on 5 of Limita�on Act, 1963

¶12

for condona�on of delay of 7 days in filing the present 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.10,38,000/- awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (hereinaer referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 05.10.2021 passed in MACP No.129 of 06.07.2019 filed under Sec�on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinaer referred to as “the Act”). Claimants/appellants are the widow and two major sons of deceasedManjeet Singh @ Mani Singh.

¶16

Learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Manjeet Singh @ Mani Singh had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 30.05.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of Alto car bearing registra�on No.PB-31N-7404 (hereina*er referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven and owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2. Learned Tribunal awarded compensa�on as above along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from date of filing of claim pe��on �ll realiza�on. Respondents were held jointly

¶17

and severally liable to pay the amount of compensa�on.

¶18

SUNENA 2023.03.29 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

2023:PHHC:041356

¶20

�

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensa�on inter alia on the ground:

¶22

a) that agricultural income of the deceased has not been considered while compu�ng compensa�on. It is submiBed that it was established on record that deceased was an agriculturist and doing work of dairy farming from which he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. However, despite above facts, learned Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as only Rs.10,000/- per month. Even J-forms (Exhibit C2 to Exhibit C4) were placed on record by the appellants and therefore, income of the deceased ought to have been taken on fair side as Rs.50,000/- per month;

¶23

b) that no parental consor�um has been granted to claimants

¶24

No.2 and 3 who are major sons of the deceased.

¶25

No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

¶27

a) Perusal of the record of the case shows that the appellants had produced Jamabandi for the year 2016-17 (Exhibit C5) which reveals that deceased was co-sharer to the extent of 146/1217 share in agricultural land measuring 15 kanal and 4 marla, 27 kanal and 13 marla, 4 kanal and 18 marla, 5 kanal and 2 marla, 8 kanal and 1 kanal 16 marla situated in the revenue estate of village Kabirpur, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur. Appellants had also placed on record J-forms (Exhibit C2 to Exhibit C4) to prove agricultural income of the deceased; as per Exhibit C2 to Exhibit C4, it was revealed that deceased had sold agricultural produce worth Rs.1,13,212 on 23.10.2017, Rs.1,79,141/- on 01.11.2018 and Rs.1,91,203/- on 24.04.2019. Further, regarding sale of milk, they had produced Exhibit C6 and Exhibit C15. However, as per established legal posi�on, income from agriculture and dairy farming is not to be taken into account while compu�ng compensa�on as, claimants are not deprived of the agricultural land and therefore, said income from land con�nues even a*er death of the deceased. Thus, there is no loss of agricultural or dairy farming income as said income is s�ll available with the appellants. In view of the above legal SUNENA2023.03.29 17:07posi�on, there is no error in the assessment made by learned Tribunal in taking I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

2023:PHHC:041356

¶29

�

¶30

no�onal income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. I find no error in above said assessment made by learned Tribunal;

¶31

b) Further, age of the deceased was proved to be 55 years from his post mortem report (Exhibit C1). Accordingly, learned Tribunal correctly added 10% of income towards future prospects and as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Na:onal Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680. Accordingly, annual income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.1,32,000/-;

¶32

c) as claimants were three in number, learned Tribunal made deduc�on of 1/3^rd towards personal living expenses in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corpora:on (2009) AIR (SC) 3104. Thus, annual income came to be Rs.1,32,000/- - Rs.44,000/- = Rs.88,000/- per annum;

¶33

d) mul�plier of 11 was correctly applied. Accordingly, total

¶34

dependency comes to Rs.9,68,000/-;

¶35

e) further Rs.15,000/- was granted towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses;

¶36

f) claimant/appellant No.1 being widow of deceased has been awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consor�um;

¶37

g) As regards dependency of the claimants no. 2 and 3 being major sons of the deceased, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.13931 of 2017 �tled as “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinish Jain & Others”;� and this Court in Harpal Kaur & Others Vs. Sita Ram & Others, Law Finder Doc Id # 921104; Narender Nayyar Vs. Sheodan Singh & Others, Law Finder Doc Id # 626136; and Sajna Devi & Others Vs. Vijender Kumar & Others, Law Finder Doc Id # 921100, that major sons not being dependent on the deceased, are not en�tled to any compensa�on. Even nothing has been stated or placed on record to prove that the appellants no. 2 and 3 were dependent on the earnings of the deceased. It is accordingly, held that the appellants no. 2 and 3 are not en�tled to compensa�on.

¶38

SUNENA 2023.03.29 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

2023:PHHC:041356 �

¶40

In view of the above facts, I find the compensa�on as calculated by learned Tribunal to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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. 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 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 compensa�on.

¶41

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Award. Present appeal accordingly stands dismissed.

¶42

Pending applica�on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

¶43

20.03.2023 Sunena

¶44

(Nidhi Gupta) Judge

¶45

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶46

SUNENA 2023.03.29 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Darshan Kaur and Ors. v. Subhash Chand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan Kaur and Ors. v. Subhash Chand 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

Davinder Kaur Vs Avtar Kaur and Ors.

Surender Kumar Vs Municipal Council and Ors.

Santosh Kumari Vs Ravi

Mst. Lateefan Vs Arun Kumar Bhanot

Chander Pal Vs Babli

Manpreet Kaur Vs Kunal Khippal and Ors.