Partly allowed

Phool Wati v. Manjit Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Aug 2024FAO/2656/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the MACT for death in a motor accident. Court allowed the appeal, enhancing compensation by adding 50% for future prospects, granting loss of filial consortium and funeral expenses, and awarding interest at 7.5% per annum. Total enhanced compensation was fixed at ₹2,93,580/-.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of ₹2,93,580/- awarded along with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Phool Wati Vs Manjit Singh — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

FAO No.2656 of 1999 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO No.2656 of 1999 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 09, 2024

¶4

Smt. Phool Wa1 and others

¶5

… Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Manjeet Singh and others …Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶9

Present: - Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sammi, Advocate for the appellants (through video conferencing).

¶10

Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate

¶11

for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

¶12

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶13

Five claim pe))ons arising out of the same motor vehicular accident were disposed of by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri, by way of common Award dated 12.01.1998. Claimants in one of them, i.e. MACT No.85 of 1994 have approached this Court for seeking enhancement. The said claim pe))on was filed on account of death of Mam Chand, who was working as a Peon in Sales Tax Department, drawing the salary of ₹1845/- per month. He was aged 35 years. It was found that Smt. Phoolwa), one of the claimants had already been divorced by the deceased and so, she was not en)tled for the compensa)on. However, the two daughters, namely, Reshma and Amrita Kaur, besides Smt. Bishna (mother of the deceased) were allowed compensa)on of ₹2,40,660/-.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants does not dispute non-en)tlement of compensa)on to Smt. Phool Wa), but submits that she is represen)ng the minor claimants-daughters, namely Reshma and Amrita Kaur.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contends that neither any future prospects have been allowed by the Tribunal nor loss of filial consor)um has been granted nor adequate compensa)on towards loss of

¶16

Page no.1 out of 3 pages

¶17

Sarita Rani 2024.08.12 02:03 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶18

FAO No.2656 of 1999 (O&M)

¶19

estate and funeral expenses have been awarded. Learned counsel has referred to “Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corpora�on and another” , (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 in order to contend that there being three claimants, deduc)on for self expenses could not be more than 1/3rd. His further conten)on is that deceased being a permanent employee ge>ng salary with allowances, so 50% of the amount should have been added for future prospects. Besides, the claimants were en)tled to compensa)on for loss of consor)um/filial consor)um @ ₹48,000/- per person, as per “Na�onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others ” 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009 , apart from ₹18,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company could not refute any of the aforesaid conten)ons and has no objec)on to assess the compensa)on in the light of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) .

¶21

As such, the compensa)on amount is modified as under:-

¶22

	Deceased Mam Chand Age – 35 years	Compensa1on awarded by MACT (in₹)	Compensa1on assessed by this Court (in₹)
1.	Monthly earning of deceased	1,845/-	1,845/-
2.	Annual Income	22,140/-	22,140/-
3.	ACer adding future prospects of 50%	----	32,210/-
4.	Deduc)on for self expenses	1/3	1/3
5.	Annul loss of dependency	14,760/-	22,140/-
6.	Mul)plier	16	16
7.	Compensa)on for Loss of dependency	2,36,160/-	3,54,240/-
8.	Loss of filial consor)um	Nil	1,44,000/- (48,000/- each for 3 claimants)

¶23

Page no.2 out of 3 pages

¶24

Sarita Rani 2024.08.12 02:03 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶25

FAO No.2656 of 1999 (O&M)

¶26

9.	Loss of estate	4500/-	18,000/-
10.	Funeral expenses	Nil	18,000/-
	Total compensa1on	2,40,660/-	5,34,240/-
	Enhanced compensa1on		2,93,580/-

¶27

It may be clarified that compensa)on under conven)onal heads of loss of estate, loss of consor)um and funeral expenses, has been allowed by adding 20 % above the amount d under these heads in view of the following observa)ons of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s Case (supra), announced on 31.10.2017 :

¶28

“(viii) Reasonable figures on conven)onal heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consor)um and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respec)vely. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”

¶29

Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the claimants are en)tled to the enhanced compensa)on of ₹ 2,93,580/- payable to them @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim pe))on )ll its actual realiza)on. The enhanced compensa)on shall be paid in the same ra)o as allowed by the Tribunal to the two children and mother of the deceased.

¶30

Disposed of.

¶31

August 09, 2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶32

Page no.3 out of 3 pages

¶33

Sarita Rani 2024.08.12 02:03 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Phool Wati v. Manjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phool Wati v. Manjit Singh

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

Gurbachan Singh Alias Bachan Singh through Lrs and Anr. Vs Mohinder Singh and Ors.

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Yasin and Others Vs Kanta Chemical Private Limited and Others

(O&M)the Branch Manager Corp. Bank Bathinda Vs Surinder Kumar and Ors.

Nasib Singh Vs St.Hr.

Pal Masih Vs Lal Masih and Others