Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1604 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision: February 11, 2014 National Insurance Company Limited ..Appellant Versus Jyoti Sobti and others ..Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr.R.C.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
*** HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.(ORAL) By filing this appeal, National Insurance Company Limited, insurer of offending vehicle, i.e.Tata Sumo bearing Reg.No.HP-19A/0285 has challenged the Award dated 1.11.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar (for short `the Tribunal').whereby, the claimants – respondents were awarded compensation of Rs.7,90,000/- on account of death of Rakesh Sobti in a vehicular accident on 30.6.2004.
The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, calculated the dependency at Rs.5000/- per month, that is, Rs.60,000/- per annum.
Multiplier of 13 was applied and compensation was worked out at Rs.7,80,000/-.
Besides, a sum of Rs.5000/-, each, under the heads of `loss of consortium' and `funeral expenses' was also awarded.
FAO No.1604 of 2007(O&M) [2].The sole argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal fell in error in not holding it to be a case of contributory negligence, as the deceased was also at fault in driving the scooter.
The law has become liberal in granting compensation.
In the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.
Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr, 2009(6) SCC121 Rajesh and others versus Rajbir Singh and otheRs.2013 ACJ1403 and Vimal Kanwar and others versus Kishore Dan and otheRs.2013(2) RCR(Civil) 945 to assess the loss of dependency, an addition of 30% is to be made in the income of the deceased, considering that he was about 45 years of age.
There being four dependents, i.e.wife, two children and the mother, only 1/4th of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased.
Besides, the widow is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards `loss of consortium' and the two children are entitled to Rs.50,000/-, each, towards `loss of love and affection'.
Applying this formula, the compensation can be calculated as under:- Sr.No.Heads Calculation (In Rs.) (i) Income (after 30% increase) (deceased 7500+[7500x30/100].= was 45 years old) 9750 p.m.(ii) 1/4th of (i) deducted as personal and living 9750-[9750x1/4].expenses of deceased 7312.50 (iii) Compensation after applying multiplier of 7312.5x12x14= 12,28,500/- 14 (iv) Consortium 1,00,000/- (exclusively for the widow) (v) Loss of Love and Affection to children 1,00,000/-(Rs.50,000/- to each child) (vi) Loss of Estate 1,00,000/- (vi) Funeral Expenses 10,000/- Total 15,38,500/- FAO No.1604 of 2007(O&M) [3].Thus, even if it be held that the accident was the result of contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles, yet, the amount (50%) payable by the appellant – Insurance Company comes to Rs.7,69,250/-, whereas, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,90,000/- only.
There is a meagre difference.
Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the appellant also could not justify the demand for reduction of compensation.
In other words, if the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, even then, the amount, payable by the appellant – Insurance Company, comes approximately equivalent to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
In view of above, appeal is dismissed.
February 11, 2014 ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) `gian' JUDGE