Allowed

Joginder Singh and Ors. v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Feb 2024FAO/1300/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, enhancing compensation by adding 25% future prospects and increasing conventional heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium based on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 12,45,000/- to Rs. 15,80,000/- plus interest at 7.5%.

Joginder Singh and Ors. Vs Pepsu Road… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

2024:PHHC:025247

¶2

799

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO-1300-2015 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.02.2024

¶5

Joginder Singh & Ors. ... Appellant(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala & Ors. ... Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶9

Present : Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, Advocate for the appellants.

¶10

Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate for the respondents-PRTC.

¶11

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

¶12

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimantappellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur vide award dated 18.10.2014.

¶13

Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

¶14

The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following

¶15

compensation :

¶16

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation Awarded
1	Monthly Income	Rs.10,000/-
2	Annual Income	[Rs.10,000x12] = Rs.1,20,000/-

¶17

Yogesh Sharma 2024.02.23 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh

¶18

2024:PHHC:025247

¶19

FAO-1300-2015 (O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

3	Deduction 1/3^rd	[Rs.1,20,000-40,000] = Rs.80,000/-
4	Multiplier - 14	[Rs.80,000x14] = Rs.11,20,000/-
5	Funeral expenses	Rs.25,000/-
6	Loss of consortium	Rs.1,00,000/-
7	Total Compensation	Rs.12,45,000/-
	Interest	7.5%

¶22

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that

¶23

though the income of the deceased was rightly assessed as Rs.10,000/- per month and a multiplier of ‘14’ as well as a deduction of 1/3^rd was applied correctly, however, no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to have been 25%. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the amount awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is also not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] , Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642] .

¶24

5 . Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondents-PRTC has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

¶25

Yogesh Sharma 2024.02.23 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh

¶26

2024:PHHC:025247

¶27

FAO-1300-2015 (O&M)

¶28

-3-

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

In the present case, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income

¶31

of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month as per the income tax returns and also correctly applied a multiplier of ‘14’ keeping in view the age of the deceased being 44 years as well as deduction of 1/3^rd , however, no addition has been made towards future prospects and hence as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 25% addition is made towards future prospects. Further, the amount awarded under the conventional heads and under the head ‘loss of consortium’ is not as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra) and hence, the claimant-appellants would be entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimant-appellants (husband and sons of the deceased) would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium.

¶32

8. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :

¶33

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation Awarded
1	Monthly Income	Rs.10,000/-
2	Annual Income	[Rs.10,000x12] = Rs.1,20,000/-
3	Deduction 1/3^rd	[Rs.1,20,000-40,000] = Rs.80,000/-
4	Future Prospects - 25%	[Rs.80,000+20,000] = Rs.1,00,000/-
5	Multiplier - 14	[Rs.1,00,000x14] = Rs.14,00,000/-

¶34

Yogesh Sharma 2024.02.23 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh

¶35

2024:PHHC:025247

¶36

FAO-1300-2015 (O&M)

¶37

-4-

¶38

6	Loss of estate	Rs.18,000/-
7	Funeral expenses	Rs.18,000/-
8	Loss of consortium
	(i) Parental	[Rs.48,000/-x2] = Rs.96,000/-
	(ii) Spousal	Rs.48,000/-
		Total Rs.1,44,000/-
	Total Compensation	Rs.15,80,000/-

¶39

The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount. The amount shall be apportioned between the claimant-appellants as directed by the Tribunal.

¶40

In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed

¶41

and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶42

22.02.2024 ( ALKA SARIN ) Yogesh Sharma JUDGE

¶43

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶44

Yogesh Sharma 2024.02.23 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh

Joginder Singh and Ors. v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder Singh and Ors. v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baljit Kaur and Another Vs Chinki

Surjit Singh Vs Jaspal Singh

Malook Singhy and Anr. Vs Surat Singh and Ors.

(O&M) Om Parkash and Ors. Vs Ashok Kumar and Ors.

Harish Chander and Anr. Vs Gurcharan Singh and Ors.

Karnail Kaur Vs Roshan Lal and Ors.