Smt. Baljit Verma and ors. Vs. Madan Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- hindu law -- custom: [vijender jain, c.j., m.m. kumar, jasbir singh, rajive bhalla & rajesh bindal, jj] alienation of ancestral property - punjab and haryana - held, in respect of state of punjab by virtue of punjab amendment act, 1973 there is a complete bar to contest any alienation of ancestral or non-ancestral immovable property or appointment of an heir to such property on ground that such alienation or appointment was contrary to custom. in punjab the property in hands of a successor has to be treated as coparcenary property and its alienation has to be governed by hindu law except to the extent it is regulated by sections 6 and 30 of the hindu succession act. in haryana, property in hands of successor has to be treated as coparcenary property as well as ancestral property......orderamarjeet chaudhary, j.1. this appeal is directed against the award of the motor accident claims, tribunal, rupnagar, dated 13.6.1986, who, on a claim petition under section 110-a of the motor vehicles act filed by smt. baljit verma and her 3 minor children, awarded a sum of rs. 2,02,000/- with 12% interest for the death of shri s. n. verma, a practising advocate, who died as a result of the injuries sustained by him while travelling in matador no. uti-7848 on 10.5.1984. the tribunal had also awarded a sum of rs. 3,000/- as funeral expenses, and rs. 3,000/- for medical expenses.2. being dis-satisfied with the award of the motor accident claims tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal') the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. the award.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims, Tribunal, Rupnagar, dated 13.6.1986, who, on a claim petition Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by Smt. Baljit Verma and her 3 minor children, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,02,000/- with 12% interest for the death of Shri S. N. Verma, a practising Advocate, who died as a result of the injuries sustained by him while travelling in Matador No. UTI-7848 on 10.5.1984. The Tribunal had also awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as funeral expenses, and Rs. 3,000/- for medical expenses.

2. Being dis-satisfied with the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The award of the Tribunal had been assailed on the ground that the Tribunal had erred in applying different multiplier and it should have adopted a unified multiplier in the case of all the claimants.

3. The other plea is that the dependency of the claimants on the deceased has not been properly calculated. The counsel also stressed that the Tribunal should have awarded a higher rate of interest.

4. Mr. Pardeep Bedi, appearing for the United India Insurance Co., respondent No. 3 contends that there is no error in the award of the Tribunal. As such no interference in the award is called for.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am convinced that there is scope for enhancement of compensation. The proposition of law is well settled that no hard and fast rule can be applied as to what would be the suitable multiplier in a particular case. In the case of professional men a multiplier of 20 can always be given. In the case in hand, it was proved on record that the deceased was 42 years old at the time of his death and was a practising lawyer. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, I consider it a fit case in which a multiplier of 20 can be applied.

6. It has also been proved on record that the deceased was an income-tax assessee. As such, the annual income of the deceased has been rightly calculated at Rs. 24,000/-. The deceased out of this income must have been spending Rs. 500/- per month on himself and the remaining Rs. 1500/- on the maintenance of his family. In this manner, the annual dependency of the claimants on the deceased would be Rs. 18,000/- (Rs. 1500 x 12).

7. From the perusal of the judgment, it is seen that the Tribunal had assessed equal dependency of the claimants while applying different multipliers in case of all the claimants. I find no rationale in the approach of the Tribunal in applying different multipliers for the reasons that if all the claimants were equally dependent on the deceased, then they ought to have been held entitled to a uniform multiplier and further to share the amount of compensation proportionately. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, the Tribunal should have applied a multiplier of 20. Applying the same, the total compensation to which the claimants are entitled to, comes to Rs. 3,60,000/-.

8. In Rukhmani Devi etc. v. Om Parkash, 1991 ACJ 3(SC) interest was allowed on the compensation @ 15%. By following the ratio in Rukmani Devi's case (supra), I allow interest at the rate of 15% from the date of the claim petition till realisation.

9. Out of the total compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/- the share of each of the claimants would be as under :-

Smt. Baljit Verma widow Rs. 1,50,000/-.Mamta-claimant No. 2 (minor) Rs. 70,000/-.Manoj Verma-claimant No 3 (minor) Rs. 70,000/-. Vikas Verma-claimant No. 4 (minor) Rs. 70,000/-.

The respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The amount of compensation falling to the shares of the minors shall be deposited in the FDRs to be drawn by them on attaining the age of majority. The compensation already awarded shall be adjusted in the compensation awarded by this court. In addition, the claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 3,000/- each as expenses on account of funeral and medicines, as already awarded by the Tribunal.

10. The appeal is allowed with costs to the extent indicated above. Costs Rs. 2000/-.