Judgment:
FAO No.3087 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3087 of 2005 (O&M). Date of Decision: February 19, 2014. Roshni Devi and others ...Appellant(s) Versus Kirpal Singh and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?. Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. No Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D.K. Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.2-insurance company. ***** ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
1. The appellants are seeking enhancement of compensation and have filed this appeal against the award dated 08.11.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal).
2. Referring to the basic facts first, Jagir Singh was a peon with Kurukshetra University. He met with an accident while he was going for work on a motorcycle at 8:15 AM on 21.01.2003. A truck bearing registration no.HR-01-CA-0135, driven by respondent no.1 came at a high speed from Radaur side and hit him. The injuries proved fatal. The Tribunal found that Jagir Singh was 42 years of age and it took the carry Sunil 2014.02.26 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.3087 of 2005 (O&M) -2- home salary @ Rs.3,467/- per month and applied the multiplier of 15 and calculated the compensation @ Rs.5,10,600/- and added Rs.10,000/- for miscellaneous heads. It also noted that the insurance company was liable to pay only 70% of the compensation as the deceased himself had contributed in the negligence which was fixed at 30%. After making a deduction of 30%, the remaining amount of Rs.3,65,120/- was allowed.
3. The counsel for the appellants contends that there could be no deduction on account of GPF and other heads in view of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Shyamwati Sharma and others Vs. Karam Singh and others 2010(3) RCR(Civil) 741. His next contention was that the Tribunal should have added 30% towards future prospects as the deceased was 42 years old. The counsel was candid enough to admit that the multiplier should have been 14 instead of 15. His next submission was that the appellants were entitled to a higher amount towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium and on account of love and affection. The last submission was that the amount towards personal deduction should be 1/4th and considering the large family. Reliance was also placed upon Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir and others 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 170 and Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others 2013(2) RCR (Civil) 945. Sunil 2014.02.26 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.3087 of 2005 (O&M) -3- 4. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent no.2-insurance company urged that a finding has already been recorded that the deceased had contributed in the accident, therefore, compensation should have been 50% instead of 30% and a proportionate amount should be allowed for the miscellaneous heads since the accident related to the year 2003.
5. The Tribunal had noted that Jagir Singh was getting a salary of Rs.5,018/- per month and it had deducted the amount towards GPF, PF & LIC Loans and had considered the carry home salary. It has been settled that while ascertaining the income of the deceased, deductions shown in the salary certificate as deduction towards GPF, life insurance premium and repayment of loans should not be excluded in the income. The Tribunal had wrongly made this deduction. The gross salary of Rs.5,018/- should have been taken into account.
6. In Santosh Devi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had followed the principle regarding addition to be made to the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(6) SCC121 It was also held that where the deceased-victim was over 40 years of age then there should be an addition of 30% in the actual income. Sunil 2014.02.26 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.3087 of 2005 (O&M) -4- Taking the income as Rs.5,018/- and after making an addition of 30%, the income would come to Rs.6,523/- per month. After making a deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses, the amount available to the family would be Rs.4,893/-. The annual contribution would come to Rs.58,716/-. As per Sarla Verma's case (supra), a multiplier of 14 would be applicable and the compensation would come to Rs.8,22,024/-. In addition a sum of Rs.20,000/- is added as funeral expenses, Rs.50,000/- is added as loss of consortium and Rs.50,000/- is added on account of loss of love and affection, considering the fact that the accident had taken place in the year 2003. The total compensation payable would be Rs.9,42,024/-.
7. The Tribunal had found that the deceased himself had contributed to the negligence. The accident had occurred when the truck driver had suddenly applied the brakes. Jagir Singh, who was coming on his motorcycle had struck the truck from behind and had sustained injuries. Had the motorcyclist maintained a safe distance and had he been careful, the accident could have been avoided. It appears that the motorcyclist was also driving at a high speed and was unable to control the speed, therefore, he could not stop his motorcycle on time. The finding regarding contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal is affirmed.
8. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,65,120/-. This amount would be deducted from the compensation Sunil 2014.02.26 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.3087 of 2005 (O&M) -5- assessed above, which comes to Rs. 5,76,904/-. The appellants would only be entitled to 70% of the amount which comes to Rs4,03,833/-. It is held that the appellants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.4,03,833/- with interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 02.03.2005 till realization. The share of minors shall be deposited in a nationalized bank till they attain majority. However, amount of interest can be released for welfare of minors. The appeal is partly allowed. Lower court record be sent back. (ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE February 19, 2014 sunil Sunil 2014.02.26 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document