Parkasho Devi and Ors. Vs Mahender and Ors.

for modifica t ion of the Award dated 15.11.2 0 19 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribu n al, Jhajjar (hereinafter referre d to as “the learned Tribunal”) in MACP-30 0 -2017 filed under Section 16 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herei n after referred to as “the A c t”) to the extent that the appellants m ay kindly be granted compensation as prayed for in the claim petition bef o re the learned Tribunal on acco u nt of death of Raj Singh. 2. Brief facts of the case ar e that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Raj Singh had died due to injuri e s suffered by him in a motor vehicular a c cident that took place on 1 7.05.2017 due to rash and negligent d riving of truck bearing r egistration No.HR-63B-9639

¶12

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

Page 2 of 7

¶14

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the offendin g vehicle’), being driven by respondent N o.1, owned by respondent No.2, and insured by respondent No.3. Learn e d Tribunal awarded compens a tion of Rs.13,96,240/- along with interes t @ 6% per annum from the dat e of filing the claim petition till actual realis a tion. The three claimants are t he widow, son and mother of the decease d -Raj Singh.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia submits that while a s sessing the compensation, the learned Tribunal has assessed the net inco m e of the deceased as Rs.16,7 4 5/- per month. It is submitted that after his retirement from the Army, t h e deceased was serving as a Security Gu a rd since 2011, and his gros s salary was Rs.18,078/- per month. It is s ubmitted that the claimants h a d proved salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.P5 however, the lear n ed Tribunal has erroneously deducted th e Provident Fund and ESI and h a s taken the monthly salary of the deceas e d as only Rs.16,745/-. Learn e d counsel contains that this deduction c o uld not have been made in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme C o urt in “Sebastiani Lakra & Others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another” Civil Appeal Nos.10588-89 of 2018 decided on 12.10.2018 . It is accordingly prayed that inc o me of the deceased be taken as Rs.18,078 / - per month.

¶16

It is further submitted t h at future prospects have also been applie d on the lower side at the rate of 10%; whereas the same should be 2 0 % as the deceased was workin g as a Security Guard and was

¶17

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

Page 3 of 7

¶19

retired fro m the Armed Forces; and wa s therefore in a ‘permanent salaried job’.

¶20

It is next contended b y learned counsel for the appellants t h at the deceased was 55 years o f age on the date of incident. However, m u ltiplier of 9 has been applied, w hereas multiplier of 11 ought to have bee n applied.

¶21

Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company o p poses the prayer made on b ehalf of the appellants and submits tha t in the FIR (Ex.P1), the regist r ation number of the alleged offending v e hicle is mentioned as ‘HR-63 B -9609’; whereas challan had been filed in respect of registration number ‘HR-63B-9639’. It is submitted that therefore, this casts a shadow of d o ubt cast as to whether the accident in q uestion was caused by the dri v er of the offending vehicle or not. Refere n ce is also made to the obser v ations made by the learned Tribunal in P a ra 21 of the impugned Award, w hich is as under:-

¶22

“21. So far as the income of t he deceased from pension is concerned, it has been arg u ed by learned counsel for respondent No.3- Insurance C ompany that the petitioners have not suffered any loss of in c ome in this regard because as per statement of pension ac c ount Ex.P26, petitioners had received the pension of the deceased after his death. However, except document E x . P26, petitioners have not placed on file any other docum e ntary proof showing that they had suffered any loss towar d s pension of the deceased. Perusal of the document Ex.P2 6 makes it clear that after the death of the deceased in May, 2 017, his pension was received

¶23

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

Page 4 of 7

¶25

by the petitioner till Novembe r , 2017. There is no evidence brought by the petitioners to p r ove the loss of the income of the deceased towards pension. ”

¶26

¶27

No other argument i s raised on behalf of the

¶28

appellants.

¶29

I have heard learned c o unsel for the appellants and perused the case file in great detail.

¶30

I find merit in the submission made on behalf of the

¶31

appellants t h at the learned Tribunal has ass e ssed income of the deceased on the lower side as only Rs.16,745/- per month. It is admitted fact on record that t he gross income of the deceased was ₹18,078/– per month. The learned Tribunal has assessed income o f the deceased as ₹16,745/–

¶32

per month by making deductions for PF and ESI. In the afore-cited judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sebastiani Lakra (supra), it is held that: –

¶33

“14. As far as the amounts of pension and gratuity are concerned, these are paid on a c count of the service rendered by the deceased to his emplo y er. It is now an established principle of service jurispr u dence that pension and gratuity a re the property of th e deceased. They are more in the nature of deferred wages. T he deceased employee works throughout his life expecting th a t on his retirement he will get substantial amount as pension and gratuity. These amounts are also payable on death, wh a tever be the cause of death. Therefore, applying the same principles, the said amount cannot be deducted.”

¶34

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

Page 5 of 7

¶36

Ld. Counsel for the resp o ndent-Insurance Company, is unable to di s pute this position in law. Accor d ingly, income of the deceased is taken as ₹ 1 8,078/– per month. 11. Next contention on beh a lf of the learned counsel for the appella n ts is that the deceased being admittedly 55 years of age, multiplier of 9 has been incorrectly applied and multiplier of 11 ought to have been a pplied; and future prospects of 10% have been applied; whereas th e same ought to have been 15%. I find merit in these arguments also which is in conformity wit h the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Sup r eme Court in “ Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation” (2009) AIR (SC) 3104 Law Finder Doc ID # 188882. It also remains undisputed t hat the deceased was an ex-ser v iceman and was working as a Security Guard at Shri Balaji Security Service s , Gurugram since 01.11.2011. 12. As regards the contentio n on behalf of the respondentInsurance C o mpany in respect of the di s crepancy in the registration number of t he offending vehicle, the rele v ant reasoning of the learned Tribunal in t h is regard is as under:-

¶37

“14. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was recovered by the police from t h e place of accident and in the supplementary statement da t ed 17.5.2017 (Ex.P4), PW1 Ranjeet Singh has duly explained how he came to know about the changed registration numb e r of the offending vehicle. His supplementary statement dat e d 17.5.2017 has also been proved by PW3 HC Yudhvir Sing h , who had recorded the same during investigation of this ca s e. It is duly explained that in

¶38

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

Page 6 of 7

¶40

the number plate, the number of offending vehicle was mentioned as HR-63B-9609 wh i ch was wrong as disclosed by its driver when he came to the e ye-witness and disclosed that digit '9609' was wrongly print e d but the actual number was 9639 and on the same day, sup p lementary statement of PW1 Ranjeet was written. Moreover, the offending vehicle was left at spot and recovered by the police with the said number plate. In the accident case s , the evidence cannot be scrutinised in the manner as scrutinised in criminal cases where the case is to be proved beyond reasonable doubts. In the motor vehicular acc i dent cases, some time during i nvestigation the offen d ing vehicle identified and its number disclosed. Responde n ts No.1 and 2 have not challenged the investigation c o nducted by the police in this case which shows that respo n dents No.1 and 2 have no grievance with the investigatio n conducted by the police.”

¶41

It is established positio n in law that claim petitions under the A ct are to be decided on th e basis of preponderance of probabilities and are not to be conducted as a strict criminal trial.

¶42

In view of the above, p r esent appeal is allowed and

¶43

the compen s ation awarded to the appella n ts/claimants is re-assessed as

¶44

under:-

¶45

Head	Amount
Income	Rs.18,078/ Rs.2,16,93 - per month x 12 = 6/-per annum
Futurepros pects(15%)	Rs.2,49,47 6/-per annum
Deduction( 1/3^rd)	Rs.1,66,31 7/-per annum
Multiplier(a ge 55)	11
Loss of depe ndency	Rs.1,66,31 7/- x 11 = Rs.18,29,487/-
Consortium	Rs.48,000/ - x 3 = Rs.1,44,000/-
Funeral exp enses	Rs.18,000/ -

¶46

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

Page 7 of 7

¶48

Loss of esta te	Rs.18,000/ -
Total	Rs.20,09,4 87/-

¶49

Pending application(s) if a ny also stand(s) disposed of.

¶50

09.01.2025 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶51

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Parkasho Devi and Ors. v. Mahender and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parkasho Devi and Ors. v. Mahender and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Singh & Ors. Vs Ram Phal & Ors.

Sunny Vs State of Haryana and Another

Amritpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mandeep Kaur @ Mona Vs Parmod Kaushal

Jaskaran Singh Vs Gurdev Singh

Sunita Devi and Ors. Vs Balwinder Singh and Ors.