High CourtsSingle Bench

Farmina And Others vs Arshad And Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 11 December 2018 · Citation: (2018) 12 P&H CK 0135

HON’BLE JUDGES
Avneesh Jhingan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 279, 337, 304A, 427
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Appeal Order No. 5702 Of 2013 (O&M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

50 paragraphs · 744 words

Avneesh Jhingan, J .

The award dated 08.04.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in MACT case No. 56 of 2012 has been assailed by the legal heirs of Mehrab (deceased) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act').

The widow and two minor children of Mehrab (deceased) are the appellants. The driver of dumper bearing registration No. HR-38-Q-7992 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'); owner and insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. have been arrayed as respondents No.1 to 3 respectively in the appeal. The mother of the deceased has been arrayed as respondent No.4 in the appeal.

The facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that on 02.08.2011, Rafiq was getting his truck bearing registration No. HR-38-N-9686 repaired after switching on its indicator. In the meantime, a rashly and negligently driven offending vehicle hit the truck from behind. As a result of the impact, Rafiq and Mehrab sustained grievous injuries. Mehrab was taken to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad where he was declared dead. FIR No. 364, dated 03.08.2011, under Sections 279, 337, 304-A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Sector 55, Faridabad.

The legal heirs of Mehrab (deceased) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal after considering the facts and appreciating the evidence adduced held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.6,62,472/- alongwith interest @7.5% per annum. The amount awarded included Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow, Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.2000/- for transportation.

The claimants in the claim petition pleaded that the deceased was working as a driver and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants failed to adduce any evidence with regard to the occupation and monthly earnings of the deceased. The Tribunal relying upon the minimum wages of an unskilled labourer assessed the monthly earning of the deceased as Rs.4600/- per month.

1/3rd deduction for self-expenses was made and multiplier of 18 was applied. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that no future prospects have been awarded and the amounts awarded under the conventional heads are on the lower side. His further grievance is that the minimum wages for an unskilled labourer at the time of accident were Rs.4643/- and the Tribunal erred in rounding it to Rs.4600/-.

Learned counsel for the insurer defended the award and resisted any further enhancement.

The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants deserves acceptance.

There is no dispute between the parties regarding deduction made for self-expenses, multiplier applied and that the Tribunal rightly relied upon the minimum wages for an unskilled labourer to assess the income of the deceased.

The only dispute is that the Tribunal rounded it on lower side i.e. Rs.4600/- per month. The compensation would be calculated by rounding off it to Rs.4650/- per month.

Having due regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others; 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009 and Hem Raj vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd; 2018 (2) PLR 480; 40% future prospects are awarded. Claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/-each, for funeral expenses and for loss of estate. Further an amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the widow for loss of consortium.

In view of afore-said discussion, the compensation is recalculated as

Head

Compensation awarded

(i)

Income

Rs.4650/-/- per month

(ii)

Future prospects at 40%

Rs.1860/- per month

(iii)

Total Income

Rs.6510/- per month

(iv)

Deduction

of

personal

Rs.2170/- (i.e. 1/3th of total income)

expenses

(v)

Multiplier

18 (as per age of deceased)

(vi)

Total Dependency

Rs.4340x12x18=Rs.9,37,440/-

(vii)

Funeral expenses

Rs.15,000/-

(viii)

Loss of estate

Rs.15,000/-

(ix)

Loss of Consortiuim

Rs.40,000/-

Total Compensation awarded

Rs.10,07,440/-

The award dated 08.04.2013 is modified to the extent that the amount awarded of Rs.6,62,472/- is enhanced to Rs.10,07,440/-. The appellants shall be entitled to interest @7.5 % per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the filing of claim petition till the realization of the amount.

The appeal is partly allowed in the afore-said terms.