Claimants sought enhancement of motor accident compensation, contending the deceased carpenter was wrongly assessed at unskilled minimum wages. No evidence of his trade as carpenter had been led; the award otherwise followed settled precedent. The appeal failed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[249] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH
FAO-12 5 4-2023 Date of D ecision : 18.10.2024
Preety K u mari and others …Appellants
versus
Vishal and others ….Respondents
Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocat e for the appellants.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
compens a tion.
[2] Learned Tribunal determine d the compensation payable to the
claimants as under:-
| 1. Monthly Income | Rs.9400/- |
|---|---|
| 2. Add future income to the 9400 + 3760 extent of 40% i.e. |
Rs.13,160**/** - |
| 3. 1/3 deduction towardsp expenses i.e. Rs.13,160/ ersonal living and - - Rs.4386/- |
Rs.8774/- |
| 4. Yearly income Rs.8774**/** - x 12 |
Rs.1,05,28 8/- |
| 5. Multiplier adopted | 18 |
| 6. Total compensation Rs.1 ,05,288/- x 18 |
Rs.18,95,1 84/- |
FAO-1254-2023 -2-
[3] The only ground being press e d by the counsel for the appell a nts is that th e deceased was working as ‘Car p enter’ yet has been assessed a s an unskilled worker and in order to deter m ine his income, learned Trib u nal relied up o n notification issued by the Sta t e of Punjab whereby, the mini m um wages pa y able to the unskilled labour h a ve been notified to be Rs.939 9 .73 (which is rounded to Rs.9400/-).
[4] On being asked, Mr. Gupta, c ounsel for the appellants is not i n a position to dispute that no evidence was led with respect to the fact that the deceased was indeed working as a ‘Ca r penter’. He admits that so fa r as other hea d s are concerned, learned Trib u nal has assessed the compensa t ion while taking into consideration dictum o f law laid down in ‘ Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another ’, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 and further in ‘ National Insurance Company ve r sus Pranay Sethi’, 2017(4) PLR 693 .
[5] In view of the above, this C ourt does not find any reaso n to interefer i n the Award.
[6] Dismissed .
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
18.10.20 2 4
‘R. Sharma'
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.10.20 00:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether compensation should be enhanced on the ground that the deceased, a carpenter, was wrongly assessed as an unskilled worker.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and anotherReferred
2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77
National Insurance Company versus Pranay SethiReferred
2017(4) PLR 693
Preety Kumari
Vishal
Pankaj Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
