Harbans Kaur And Others vs Jeon Singh And Others

,,

Arun Kumar Tyagi, J",,

The claimants Harbans Kaur-mother, Iqbal Kaur-widow Rukmandeep Kaur and Simarandeep Kaur minor daughters of deceased-Kulwinder Singh",,

filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (for short ‘the",,

Tribunal’) vide award dated 14. 11.2009 passed in MACT Case No.29 of 2007 titled as Harbans Kaur and others Vs. Jeon Singh and others on,,

account of death of Kulwinder Singh due to injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 13.05.2007.,,

Hasanpreet Kaur, minor daughter of deceased-Kulwinder Singh born on 08.02.2008 after filing of the claim petition was impleaded as",,

appellant/claimant during pendency of the appeal vide order dated 02.04.2019.,,

The claimants filed the above-said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the M.V. Act’) on the",,

averments that on 13.05.2007 Kulwinder Singh, his friend Gurmit Singh and his uncle Balbir Singh were coming from Barnala on their motor cycles.",,

Gurmit Singh was driving the motor cycle and Kulwinder Singh was pillion rider and Balbir Singh was on his own motor cycle. When they reached,,

near Yadgari Gate of Village Jethuke on Barnala-Bathinda main road, Canter bearing registration No.PB-31-A-4425, owned by respondent No.2 and",,

insured with respondent No.3, came from opposite side driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. When the motor cycle of Gurmit",,

Singh came parallel to the tractor trolley coming from opposite direction, respondent No.1 all of a sudden turned the canter on its extreme right hand",,

side, in order to overtake the tractor trolley without noticing the motor cycle coming from the opposite side due to which, the Canter struck against the",,

motor cycle of Gurmit Singh. The Canter dragged the motor cycle along with deceased-Kulwinder Singh upto considerable distance before stopping.,,

Kulwinder Singh succumbed to the injuries on the spot. FIR No.59 dated 14.05.2007 was registered at Police Station Rampur regarding the accident.,,

While pleading that the deceased-Kulwinder Singh was aged about 27 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as Mason on",,

contract basis and claiming themselves to be dependents and legal representatives of the deceased, the claimants prayed for award of compensation",,

of Rs.20 lacs with costs and interest at the rate of 18% per annum against respondent No.1-driver, respondent No.2-owner and respondent No.3-",,

insurer of the canter jointly and severally.,,

The petition was contested by respondents. In their written statement respondents No.1 and 2 denied the accident and their liability. In its written,,

statement respondent No.3 took objections as to respondent No.1 not having valid and effecting driving licence and breach of the terms and conditions,,

of the insurance policy, controverted material averments made in the petition and denied its liability.",,

The Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence produced by the parties. On perusal of the material on record and consideration of the,,

submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties the Tribunal held that Kulwinder Singh died due to injuries suffered in accident caused by,,

rash and negligent driving of Canter bearing registration No. PB-31-A-4425 by respondent No.1, assessed his income as Rs.3,000/- per month,",,

deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 14 and by adding Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards",,

funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/-towards loss of estate and Rs.4,500/- towards transportation awarded total compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- to the claimants",,

with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum and directed respondents No.1 to 3 to pay the compensation amount jointly and severally.,,

Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have filed present appeal for enhancement of compensation.",,

I have heard arguments addressed by learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellants and learned Counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance,,

Company and have gone through the record.,,

Learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellants has argued that the Tribunal did not properly assess income of the deceased, did not make any",,

addition towards future prospects, deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/4th towards his personal expenses and applied wrong multiplier of 14 instead of applying",,

multiplier of 17 as per age of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded meager amounts towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.",,

The Tribunal also awarded lesser rate of interest. Therefore, the impugned award may be modified and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal",,

may be enhanced.,,

On the other hand learned Counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has argued that the Tribunal has awarded just and adequate,,

compensation and the claimants are not entitled to enhancement of the amount awarded. Therefore, the appeal may be dismissed.",,

In the claim petition the claimants pleaded and PW-1 Harbans Kaur testified before the Tribunal that the deceased-Kulwinder Singh was working,,

as mason with various contractors and earning Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of his death but in the absence of corroboration by any other cogent",,

and reliable oral or documentary evidence self-serving solitary testimony of Harbans Kaur as to quantum of income of the deceased could not be,,

relied upon and was rightly disbelieved by the Tribunal. Therefore, assessment of the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month by the Tribunal",,

on the basis of minimum wages payable to skilled labourer during the relevant period cannot be said to be improper. However, the Tribunal did not",,

make any addition in the income of the deceased towards future prospects. In view of the age of the deceased and observations of Hon’ble,,

Supreme Court in para No.61(iv) of its judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 1009,",,

addition of 40% of the income was required to be made towards future prospects. When so added, income of the deceased comes to (Rs.3,000/- +",,

Rs.1,200/- =) Rs.4,200/-.",,

In view of the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para No.14 of its judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi,,

Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 77 and the number of claimants dependent on the deceased being five, the Tribunal was",,

required to deduct 1/4th instead of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. On such deduction annual dependency of the,,

claimants on the deceased comes to Rs.4,200/- â€" Rs.1,050/- (1/4) = Rs.3,150/- X 12 = Rs.37,800/-.",,

Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in para No.61(vii) of its judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (Supra) that the age of the deceased should be,,

the basis for applying the multiplier. In view of the age of the deceased being 27 years and observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in para No.21,,

of its judgment in Sarla Verma’s Case (Supra) multiplier of 17 was required to be applied by the Tribunal and the Tribunal erred in applying the,,

multiplier of 14. When multiplier of 17 is applied to annual dependency of the claimants on the deceased, compensation payable for loss of dependency",,

comes to (Rs.37,800 X 17 =) Rs.6,42,600/-.",,

In the present case, the Tribunal merely awarded amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss or consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses,",,

Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.4,500/- towards transportation. In Pranay Sethi’s Case (Supra), while answering the reference on",,

31.10.2017 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in para No.61 (viii) of its judgment 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. In the said case, Hon’ble",,

Sr.

No.",Head,Compensation

1.,Monthly income of the deceased,"Rs.3,000/- per month

2.,"Income after addition of future

prospects at the rate of 40%",Rs.3000 + Rs.1200 = Rs.4200/-

3.,"Deduction of 1/4th on account of

personal expenses",Rs.4200 â€" Rs.1050 (1/4) = Rs.3150/-

4.,Annual Dependency,"Rs.3150 x 12 = Rs.37,800/-

5.,Loss of Dependency,"Rs.37,800/- x17 =Rs.6,42,600/-

6.,Funeral Expenses,"Rs.10,500/-

7.,"Compensation payable for loss of

spousal, parental and filial consortium","Rs.28,000/-

8.,Loss of Estate,"Rs.10,500/-

,Total Compensation,"Rs.6,91,600/-

Manger, United India Insurance Company : 2014(1) RCR (Civil) 765 interest was awarded at the rate of 9% per annum.",,

In Sube Singh and another Vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) and others 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 131 (SC) rate of interest of 6% per annum awarded by the,,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was modified by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to 9% per annum.,,

In view of the observations in above referred judicial precedents, RBI’s lending rate of interest, mercantile rate of interest prevalent, rate of",,

interest allowed by Nationalized Banks on fixed deposit receipts and other relevant factors, it will be appropriate to modify the rate of interest of 6%",,

per annum awarded by the Tribunal to 9% per annum.,,

It follows from the above discussion that the claimants are entitled to payment of compensation of Rs.6,91,600/- with costs and interest at the rate",,

of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The amount of Rs.3,50,000/- awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal shall be",,

liable to be deducted from the amount calculated as above. Out of the enhanced amount of Rs.3,41,600/- amount of Rs.41,600/- shall be payable to",,

claimant No.1-mother, amount of Rs.50,000/- each shall be payable to claimants No.1-mother and claimants No.3 and 4 minor daughters and amount",,

of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be payable to claimant No.5 minor daughter born after death of Kulwinder Singh. On realization 50% of the enhanced",,

compensation as per shares of claimant No.1 and 2 shall be payable to them in cash and remaining 50% shall be deposited in FDRs in their names in,,

some nationalized Bank for three years. The amount of the shares of minor claimants No.3, 4 and 5 shall be deposited in FDRs fetching maximum",,

rate of interest in some nationalized bank till attaining of majority by them and on attaining of majority they shall be entitled to payment of the same,,

with accrued interest without the requirement of passing of any further order in this regard by this Court or the Tribunal,,

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with costs in terms of the above said modifications of the award dated 14.11.2009.",,