[CASE NUMBER] -1- IN THE HI[ENTITY]H COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI[ENTITY]ARH [CASE NUMBER] Date of decision:- 10.05.2018 [ENTITY] and ors. Appellants Versus [ENTITY] and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present:- Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for the appellants None for the respondents. [ENTITY] J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant- appellant, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muktsar (for short, 'the Tribunal') to the tune of Rs.02,64,000/- vide impugned award dated 13.04.2010.
2. The facts which are not in dispute are that on 09.09.2008, [ENTITY] was proceeding from village Ratta Ther to Kotkapura after loading the trolley with woods attached with trolley with woods attached with tractor mark Eicher bearing registration NO. PB 05F- 6517. The deceased-[ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were also riding on the above tractor in its seat. When they reached in front of the Horticulture Office, Nursery Sarainaga after crossing bus stop, the tyre of the trolley got punctured and they were engaged in changing it in the torch light. Thereafter, one truck bearing registration No. RJ-13-[ENTITY]-6889 came from the side of Muktsar being driven rashly by respondent No. 1 and struck against tractor trolley. The deceased [ENTITY] was crushed 1 of 4 under the trucked and died on the spot. F.I.R No. 70 dated 10.09.2008 was also registered in this regard under [SECTION] [ACT].
3. As per the Tribunal, the deceased-[ENTITY] in the present case was 20 years old at the time of the accident. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month and 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses and thereafter, applied the multiplier of 11, in view of [PRECEDENT]. The total compensation awarded to the claimant was Rs.02,64,000/-.
4. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to the enhanced, as the Tribunal has not awarded future prospects and further nothing has been awarded under conventional heads. The multiplier of 11 has also been wrongly applied.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the present appeal.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Reference at this stage can be made to a recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of [PRECEDENT], passed in [CASE NUMBER], decided on October 31, 2017 wherein the issue with regard to awarding of amount under the conventional heads has been authoritatively decided, while observing as under :-
"54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find 2 of 4 it difficult to agree with the view expressed in [ENTITY]. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/-loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though [ENTITY] refers to [ENTITY], it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage 3 of 4 basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.".
8. In the present case, the compensation is being reassessed as per the judgments mentioned above:-
Sr. Heads Calculations No. (i) Salary Rs.3000/- per month (ii) 40% of (i) above to be added as Rs.3000+Rs.1200=Rs.4200/- per month future prospects= (iii) 1/2 of (ii) deducted as personal Rs.4200-Rs.2100=Rs.2100/- per month expenses of the deceased= (iv) Compensation after multiplier of Rs.2100X 12 X 18= Rs.04,53,600/- 18 is applied (v) Conventional heads (Loss of Rs.30,000/- estate and funeral expenses) (vi) Total Compensation awarded Rs.04,83,600/- Enhanced amount of Rs.04,83,600-Rs.02,64,000=Rs.2,19,600/-) compensation rounded of to Rs.2,20,000/-
9. The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- shall be payable within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The appellants shall also get interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of [PRECEDENT], passed in [CASE NUMBER]., decided on 19.01.2018. The remaining conditions of disbursal of amount and recovery rights shall remain unaltered.
10. Accordingly, the award stands modified to the above extent and the present appeal is partly allowed.
10.05.2018 ([ENTITY]) [ENTITY] [ENTITY] JUD[ENTITY]E Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No 4 of 4