Enhancement appeal against MACT award in a fatal motor accident claim. The court assessed the deceased JCB Operator's income at his proved salary of Rs.6,300/- per month, added 40% future prospects per Pranay Sethi, and enhanced heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium, reworking total compensation to Rs.9,83,640/-.
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.
2024:PHHC:026514
FAO-429-2014 (O&M)
-1-
106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-429-2014 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.02.2024
Maya Devi ... Appellant(s) Versus Veeru Lal and others ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) and Mr. Raghav Dev Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
compensation :
| Sr. No. | Heads | Compensation Awarded |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Monthly Income | Rs.4,000/- |
| 2 | Annual Income | [Rs.4,000x12] = Rs.48,000/- |
| 3 | Deduction 50% | [Rs.48,000-24,000] = Rs.24,000/- |
Yogesh Sharma 2024.02.27 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh
2024:PHHC:026514
-2-
FAO-429-2014 (O&M)
| 4 | Multiplier - 17 | [Rs.24,000x17] = Rs.4,08,000/- |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Funeral expenses and consortium |
Rs.10,000/- |
| 6 | Total Compensation | Rs.4,18,000/- |
| Interest | 6% per annum |
the salary of the deceased was Rs.6,300/- per month and the same stood duly proved. The deceased was working as a JCB Operator in GREF and his salary slips were also proved on the record as Ex.A3. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that AW3 Jeewan Chandra Upreti deposed that the deceased was working in their department as JCB Operator at Dhar Kalan and was drawing a salary of Rs.6,300/- per month. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that though the salary stood proved, however, since it was stated by the witness that the deceased was employed as a casual labourer, hence his earning was assessed as per that of a casual labourer as Rs.4,000/- per month. The learned counsel would further contend that in view of the fact that there is sufficient evidence on the record to prove that the salary of the deceased at the time of the accident was Rs.6,300/- per month, the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as Rs.6,300/per month instead of Rs.4,000/- per month. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that though multiplier of ‘17’ as well as a deduction of 50% was applied correctly, however, no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to have been 40%. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards funeral
Yogesh Sharma 2024.02.27 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh
2024:PHHC:026514
FAO-429-2014 (O&M)
-3-
expenses and consortium is also on the lower side. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant 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] .
Yogesh Sharma 2024.02.27 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh
2024:PHHC:026514
FAO-429-2014 (O&M)
-4-
not be any reason to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month. In view thereof, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.6,300/-. In the present case, the Tribunal has though rightly applied a multiplier of ‘17’ as well as deduction of 50%, 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), 40% addition is made towards future prospects as the deceased was stated not to be a permanent employee. Further, the amount awarded towards funeral expenses and 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-appellant 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 claimantappellant would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium.
8. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
| Sr. No. | Heads | Compensation Awarded |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Monthly Income | Rs.6,300/- |
| 2 | Annual Income | [Rs.6,300 x 12] = Rs.75,600/- |
| 3 | Deduction 50% | [Rs.75,600 - 37,800] = Rs.37,800/- |
| 4 | Future Prospects - 40% | [Rs.37,800 + 15,120] = Rs.52,920/- |
| 5 | Multiplier - 17 | [Rs.52,920 x 17] = Rs.8,99,640/- |
| 6 | Loss of estate | Rs.18,000/- |
| 7 | Funeral expenses | Rs.18,000/- |
| 8 | Loss of consortium |
Yogesh Sharma 2024.02.27 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh
2024:PHHC:026514
FAO-429-2014 (O&M)
-5-
(i) Filial Rs.48,000/Total Compensation Rs.9,83,640/-
26.02.2024 ( ALKA SARIN ) Yogesh Sharma JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO
Yogesh Sharma 2024.02.27 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the deceased's monthly income should be assessed at the proved salary of Rs.6,300/- rather than casual labourer rates.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.Applied¶7
[(2017) 16 SCC 680] · Who else cites this
Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.Applied¶7
[(2018) 18 SCC 130] · Who else cites this
N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd.Applied¶7
[2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642]
Maya Devi
Veeru Lal
others
Alka Sarin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
