Judgment:
FAO No.3202 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH1 FAO No.3202 of 2001(O&M) Date of Decision: July 11, 2014.
Smt.
Kamlesh and others .....APPELLANT(s) Versus Gurpreet Singh and others .....RESPONDENT (s) 2.
FAO No.3386 of 2001(O&M).Ram Mehar .....APPELLANT(s) Versus Gurpreet Singh and others .....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL Present: Mr.Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
***** 1.
Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2.
To be referred to the reports or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?.
***** LISA GILL, J.
This order shall decide FAO No.3202 of 2001 and FAO No.3386 of 2001, which arise out of the common award dated 17.05.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Tribunal').FAO No.3202 of 2001 has been filed by the legal representatives of Singh Omkar 2014.08.02 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.3202 of 2001 2 deceased – Randhir Singh for the enhancement of compensation awarded to them vide impugned award.
FAO No.3386 of 2001 has been filed by the appellant – Ram Mehar for the enhancement of compensation awarded to him on account of the damage caused to his Maruti Car bearing registration No.CH-01- K-7607 due to the accident, which took place on 03.05.2000.
The brief facts are that on 03.05.2000, Randhir Singh (deceased) was driving down from Chandigarh to village Frain Kalan in a Maruti car bearing registration No.CH-01-K-7607.
Due to the rash and negligent driving of a truck bearing registration No.RJ-13-G-0706 by respondent No.1 – Gurpreet Singh, an accident was caused in the area of village Bata near main Kaliram road towards Narwana.
Randhir Singh died at the spot due to the multiple injuries received by him.
Randhir Singh was employed as Naik Electronic in the Indian Army and was aged about 35 years at the time of accident.
He was getting a salary of `5,891/- as per Ex.P1.
Two claim petitions were filed.
One by the legal representatives of Randhir Singh claiming compensation of `15,00,000/- on account of his death and the other by Ram Mehar claiming compensation of `1,50,000/- on account of the damage to his Maruti car.
The Tribunal awarded a sum of `7,40,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Randhir Singh alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation.
A sum of `25,000/- was awarded to Ram Mehar on account of the damage to his Maruti car bearing registration No.CH-01-K-7607 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
The present appeals have been filed for the enhancement of the said compensation.
Singh Omkar 2014.08.02 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.3202 of 2001 3 The deceased – Randhir Singh was admittedly employed as Naik Electronic in the Indian Army getting a salary of `5,891/- per month and having five dependants i.e., widow, three minor children and mother.
The Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd account of personal expenses.
A deduction of 1/4th in this case would be appropriate keeping in view the number of dependents as per guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.
Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77.
Applying the multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation works out to be `8,48,256/- (4418x12x16).Keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi v.
National Insurance Company LTD.and otheRs.(2012) 6 SCC421 the compensation on account of loss of future income is also made out especially keeping in view the fact that the deceased – Randhir Singh was in Government service.
His age is admitted to be 35 yeaRs.Therefore, he is entitled to increase of 50% on account of promotional prospects.
Thus, an amount of `4,24,128/- (50% of 8,48,256) is awarded on account of loss of future income/prospects.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `10,000/- towards funeral expenses, transportation as well as loss of consortium.
The appellants are entitled to `10,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation, `20,000/- on account of loss of consortium and `20,000/- on account of love and affection.
Thus, the total amount of compensation, to which the appellants are entitled, is assessed at `13,22,384/- (848256+424128+10000+20000+ 20000).The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `7,40,000/- which shall be deducted from `13,22,384/- and the remainder (`5,82,384/-) shall be payable to the appellants Singh Omkar 2014.08.02 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.3202 of 2001 4 alongwith interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
Learned counsel for the appellant – Ram Mehar has urged that a sum of `25,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal on account of the damage to the Maruti car and the claimant is entitled to a much higher amount.
It has rightly been held by the Tribunal that the evidence led by the said claimant regarding the estimate of repairs is not convincing.
There is no evidence on record to show the actual damage, which has been caused to the car.
It is a conceded position that no official surveyor had evaluated the car and given his estimate.
Reliance is placed only on Ex.P2 i.e., the estimate showing the expenditure which would be incurred on various parts detailed therein.
The said Maruti car is a 1994 model subsequently purchased by the claimant from one Smt.
Lalita Devi for an alleged consideration of `1,40,000/-.
In the light of the fact that there is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to show any damage beyond the amount which has been granted by the Tribunal, no ground is made out for enhancement of the amount already awarded by the Tribunal.
The finding of the Tribunal in respect to the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of `6,000/- has not been assailed nor arguments have been addressed on this issue and the same is, therefore, upheld.
Keeping in view the above, FAO No.3202 of 2001 is partly allowed in the abovesaid terms and FAO No.3386 of 2001 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
( LISA GILL ) July 11, 2014.
JUDGE ‘om’ Singh Omkar 2014.08.02 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh