Present Mr. A.S.Sidhu Advocate Vs. Smt. Vidyawanti and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1093760
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnOct-04-2013
AppellantPresent Mr. A.S.Sidhu Advocate
RespondentSmt. Vidyawanti and Others
Excerpt:
f.a.o.no.4776 of 2013 1 .in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh f.a.o.no.4776 of 2013 [o&m].date of decision: october 4th, 2013 icici lombard general insurance company ltd...appellant versus smt. vidyawanti and others ...respondents coram : hon'ble mr.justice vijender singh malik1whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2.whether to be referred to the reporters or not?. 3.whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present mr.a.s.sidhu, advocate, for the appellant. vijender singh malik, j. this is an appeal brought by icici lombard general insurance company ltd., the insurer against the award dated 1.8.2013 passed by learned motor accidents claims tribunal, chandigarh (for short, "the tribunal") vide which a sum of ` 8,26,135/- is allowed as compensation to the claimants for the death of umesh chander alias umesh batra. the award is challenged on two grounds. the firs.is that the learned tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at `5,000/- without there being any documentary evidence in that regard. the second ground is that 30% increase has been allowed to the prakash som 2013.10.08 12:03 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document f.a.o.no.4776 of 2013 2 .income, though, the deceased had not been proved to be self-employed or engaged on fixed wages. the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the income of the deceased has been wrongly taken at `5,000/- considering him to be a labourer. though, ashok kumar, salesman of c.l.traders.chandigarh, where the deceased was claimed to have been working, has stepped into the witness-box and in his examination-in-chief, he has stated the deceased to have been working as a salesman and earning ` 11,000/- per month, yet his statement was rightly not read into evidence as he did not face the test of cross-examination. the accident in this case took place on 4.5.2011 and learned tribunal has committed no error in assessing the income of the deceased at `5,000/- per month by taking him as a labourer. the concept of addition to be made to the income on account of future prospects originated in smt. sarla verma and others versus delhi transport corporation and another 2009 (3) rcr (civil) 77, where the requirement was that the victim should be in permanent job. after this pronouncement, this principle has been diluted in various judgments and finally in rajesh and ors.versus rajbir singh and ors.2013 acj1403 the addition to the income of the victim in the name of future prospects is allowed even in case of self employed and people working on fixed wages. taking into account the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, learned tribunal has adopted the multiplier and added 30% to the aforesaid income of the deceased in order to assess the compensation treating him as a labourer. even if the deceased has been a labourer, he can be taken to be working on fixed wages. i, therefore, find no defect in prakash som 2013.10.08 12:03 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document f.a.o.no.4776 of 2013 3 .the finding of learned tribunal on this question. hence, finding no substance in any of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, i do not find that the impugned award calls for any interference by this court. consequently, the appeal is held to have no merit and the same is dismissed in limine (vijender singh malik) judge october 4th, 2013 som prakash som 2013.10.08 12:03 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

F.A.O.No.4776 of 2013 1 .IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.4776 of 2013 [O&M].Date of Decision: October 4th, 2013 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd...Appellant Versus Smt.

Vidyawanti and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK1Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?.

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Present Mr.A.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant.

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

This is an appeal brought by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer against the award dated 1.8.2013 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, "the Tribunal") vide which a sum of ` 8,26,135/- is allowed as compensation to the claimants for the death of Umesh Chander alias Umesh Batra.

The award is challenged on two grounds.

The fiRs.is that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at `5,000/- without there being any documentary evidence in that regard.

The second ground is that 30% increase has been allowed to the Prakash Som 2013.10.08 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O.No.4776 of 2013 2 .income, though, the deceased had not been proved to be self-employed or engaged on fixed wages.

The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the income of the deceased has been wrongly taken at `5,000/- considering him to be a labourer.

Though, Ashok Kumar, Salesman of C.L.TradeRs.Chandigarh, where the deceased was claimed to have been working, has stepped into the witness-box and in his examination-in-chief, he has stated the deceased to have been working as a salesman and earning ` 11,000/- per month, yet his statement was rightly not read into evidence as he did not face the test of cross-examination.

The accident in this case took place on 4.5.2011 and learned Tribunal has committed no error in assessing the income of the deceased at `5,000/- per month by taking him as a labourer.

The concept of addition to be made to the income on account of future prospects originated in Smt.

Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, where the requirement was that the victim should be in permanent job.

After this pronouncement, this principle has been diluted in various judgments and finally in Rajesh and ORS.versus Rajbir Singh and ORS.2013 ACJ1403 the addition to the income of the victim in the name of future prospects is allowed even in case of self employed and people working on fixed wages.

Taking into account the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, learned Tribunal has adopted the multiplier and added 30% to the aforesaid income of the deceased in order to assess the compensation treating him as a labourer.

Even if the deceased has been a labourer, he can be taken to be working on fixed wages.

I, therefore, find no defect in Prakash Som 2013.10.08 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document F.A.O.No.4776 of 2013 3 .the finding of learned Tribunal on this question.

Hence, finding no substance in any of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find that the impugned award calls for any interference by this Court.

Consequently, the appeal is held to have no merit and the same is dismissed in limine (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 4th, 2013 som Prakash Som 2013.10.08 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document