Judgment:
FAO-7079-2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-7079-2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.01.2014 Desho Devi ...Appellant Versus Mange Ram and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Amit Kohar, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr.R.C.Kapoor, Advocate, for the Insurance Company.
-.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
The present appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, ('the Tribunal', for brevity) vide impugned award dated 18.07.2011, on account of the death of her son, namely, Sandeep Kumar @ Lala, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on the intervening night of 6-7.08.2010.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under various heads is highly inadequate.
Sethi Atul 2014.02.07 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO-7079-2011 -2- On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and appropriate and does not call for any interference.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is evident from the perusal of the impugned award that at the time of his death, the deceased was aged 24 yeaRs.The learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 14 keeping in view the age of the appellant-mother.
In Amrit Bhanu Shali versus National Insurance Co.LTD.(SC).2012(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 343, Hon'ble the Apex Court was pleased to hold that in a case relating to the death of a bachelor, the basis for determination of multiplier should be the age of the deceased and not that of the claimant(s).In the present case, the deceased was a bachelor.
Therefore, the multiplier of 14 as selected by the learned Tribunal is increased to 18.
It is further observed that the learned Tribunal has not considered the aspect of future prospects of the deceased.
It has come on record that the deceased was serving as a security guard with M/s Superior Fire and Security Services PVT.LTD.In a recent judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rajesh versus Rajbir Singh (SC).2013(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 170, it has been Sethi Atul 2014.02.07 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO-7079-2011 -3- categorically held that in case of death of a person who is self employed or earning fixed salary, there should be addition to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects.
In the instant case, the deceased was aged 24 yeaRs.therefore, an addition of 50% of the actual income is made.
The amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards last rites is also enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.
Keeping in view the above, the compensation to be awarded to the appellant comes to as under:- Sr.No.Heads Calculation (1) Salary per month Rs.7,150/- (2) Salary per month after addition [Rs.7150/- + Rs.3575/-].of 50% towards future prospects Rs.10725/- (3) Income after applying ½ Rs.5362.5/- deduction (Say Rs.5360/-) (4) Annual dependency Rs.64320/- (5) Compensation after multiplier Rs.11,57,760/- of 18 is applied (6) List rites Rs.25,000/- (7) Loss of love and affection Rs.5,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.11,87,760/- In view of the above, the claimant-appellant, mother of the deceased, is held entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.5,71,760/- (Rs.11,87,760/- less Rs.6,16,000/-) over and above the amount already awarded by the learned Tribunal, which shall be payable within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a Sethi Atul 2014.02.07 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO-7079-2011 -4- certified copy of this judgment, failing which, they shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the present appeal, till its realization.
With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the present appeal is partly allowed.
14.01.2014 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes / No.Sethi Atul 2014.02.07 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh