Kanishka Narang And Another vs Harbhajan Singh And Others

,,

Archana Puri, J",,

The matter has been taken up through video conferencing in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic.,,

These are six appeals filed to challenge the Award dated 17.12.2012. Vide this Award, four claim petitions, which were consolidated, vide order dated",,

27.10.2009, were disposed of. Claim petitions No.116, 117 and 118 relate to deaths of Rajneesh Narang, Sonia Narang and Tanisha Narang",,

respectively, whereas, claim petition No.119, relate to injuries sustained by Kanishka Narang, in a motor vehicular accident.",,

FAOs No.2350, 2351 and 2352 of 2013 have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, vis-a-vis, deaths of aforesaid three",,

persons and also FAO No.4529 of 2013 has been filed for seeking enhancement of compensation, vis-a-vis, injuries sustained by Kanishka Narang, in",,

a motor vehicular accident.,,

However, FAOs No.4282 and 4283 of 2013 have been filed by the Insurance Company, thereby, asserting that compensation qua deaths of Rajneesh",,

Narang and Sonia Narang, have been wrongly worked upon on higher side.",,

For the convenience of discussion, the parties are referred to as claimants and respondents, as making appearance before the learned Tribunal.",,

As per the version of the claimants, on 01.12.2008, Rajneesh Narang along with his wife Sonia Narang and daughters, namely Kanishka and Tanisha,",,

was coming back from Gurdaspur to Chandigarh via Hoshiarpur in his TATA Indica Car bearing No.CH-03P-0584, after attending marriage. When",,

they reached at Tanda road at village Assalpur, Police Station Sadar, Hoshiapur, at about 1.15 p.m., a truck bearing registration No.PIA-9092, being",,

driven by respondent No.1-Harbhajan Singh, in a rash and negligent manner, came from the front side and hit their Indica Car. As a result of this",,

accident, Kanishka sustained serious injuries,whereas, Rajneesh Narang, Sonia Narang and Tanisha, had died in the accident. FIR No.268 dated",,

01.12.2008 under Sections 279, 338, 304-A and 427 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, was registered against respondent No.1-Harbhajan Singh.",,

Further, in the respective claim petitions, it is also asserted that Rajneesh Narang (since deceased) was 38 years old and he was running a business",,

under the name and style of Axcess Overseas Consultant and Mastek Computer Business, thereby earning Rs.5 lakh per annum. Likewise, Sonia",,

Narang was stated to be 31 years old, on the date of accident and she was also running a business under the name and style of Axcess Overseas",,

Consultant and Mastek Computer Business along with her husband, thereby earning Rs.3 lakh per annum. Rs.1 lakh was spent on her treatment.",,

Further, it is asserted that Tanisha was 4 years old, at the time of accident and was studying in Sacred Heart Senior Secondary School, Chandigarh",,

and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was spent on her treatment.",,

Kanishka Narang was 9 years old, at the time of accident and she was also studying in Sacred Heart Senior Secondary School, Chandigarh. She",,

sustained multiple grievous injuries and was treated in DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, Chaitanya Hospital, Chandigarh, Virdi Eye Hospital, Chandigarh and",,

Fortis Hospital, Mohali. A sum of Rs.2.5 lakh was incurred on her treatment.",,

In view of these assertions, compensation sought by the claimants is to the extent of Rs.60 lakh, Rs.50 lakh, Rs.30 lakh and Rs.30 lakh, respectively, in",,

all the claim petitions.,,

In reply, respondent No.1, who is owner and driver of the truck bearing No.PIA-9092, denied the accident in toto. Respondents No.2 and 3-National",,

Insurance Company pleaded in the reply that respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the truck, at the relevant",,

time and the truck was being plied against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Though, the accident, as such, has been denied but",,

however, it was pleaded that driver of the offending truck, was not negligent. Even, the amount of compensation claimed, was also asserted to be",,

excessive.,,

From the pleadings of the respective cases, issues were framed. In MACT case No.116 of 2009, following issues were framed:-",,

Whether accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.PIA-9092 by respondent No.1, if",,

so, whether Rajneesh Narang died due to injuries suffered by him in the accident in question?OPP",,

If issue No.1 is decided in favour of claimants, whether claimants are entitled for any compensation, if so, how much and from whom?",,

OPP,,

Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if not, its effect?OPR-3",,

Relief.,,

In MACT case No.117 of 2009, following issues were framed:-",,

Whether accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.PIA-9092 by respondent No.1, if",,

so, whether Sonia Narang died due to injuries suffered by her in the accident in question?OPP",,

If issue No.1 is decided in favour of claimants, whether claimants are entitled for any compensation, if so, how much and from whom?",,

OPP,,

Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if not, its effect?OPR-3",,

Relief.,,

In MACT case No.118 of 2009, following issues were framed:-",,

Whether accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.PIA-9092 by respondent No.1, if",,

so, whether Tanisha Narang died due to injuries suffered by her in the accident in question?OPP",,

If issue No.1 is decided in favour of claimants, whether claimants are entitled for any compensation, if so, how much and from whom?",,

OPP,,

Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if not, its effect?OPR-3",,

Relief.,,

In MACT case No.119 of 2009, following issues were framed:-",,

Whether accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.PIA-9092 by respondent No.1, if",,

so, whether Kanishka suffered injuries in the accident in question?OPP",,

If issue No.1 is decided in favour of claimants, whether claimants are entitled for any compensation, if so, how much and from whom?",,

OPP,,

Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if not, its effect?OPR-3",,

Relief.,,

In an endeavour to establish their case, Mohinder Singh Narang-claimant No.2, himself stepped into witness box as PW-1 and also examined Sahinder",,

Singh as PW-2, besides adducing documentary evidence. However, respondents did not lead any oral evidence and they have only tendered",,

documentary evidence.,,

Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence, brought on record, came to the conclusion that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving",,

of the truck bearing No.PIA-9092, driven by respondent No.1-Harbhajan Singh, as a result whereof, death of Rajneesh Narang, Sonia Narang and",,

Tanisha had taken place and Kanishka had sustained injuries. This conclusion, as such, is not disputed by either of the parties in the respective",,

appeals. Even, fact of age of deceased Rajneesh Narang to be 38 years, Sonia Narang to be 32 years, Tanisha to be 5 year and Kanishka to be 9",,

years, at the relevant time, as such, also stand established from the evidence adduced.",,

However, aforesaid appeals have been filed to challenge the extent of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Claimants in their respective appeals,",,

have asserted compensation to have been calculated on lower side, whereas, Insurance Company in its appeals, asserted the compensation qua death",,

of Rajneesh Narang and Sonia Narang, to have been worked upon higher side.",,

At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the appeals, in pursuance of the applications filed, to place on record, income tax",,

returns record, it was observed that learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the claimants are ad idem that income tax returns of the",,

deceased (Rajneesh Narang and Sonia Narang) for the assessment years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, are extremely relevant and",,

necessary, for just adjudication of the matter. Thus, the claimants were permitted to lead evidence, in respect to the income tax returns for the",,

assessment years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The matter was reverted to the Tribunal to record the evidence of the rival parties and to",,

submit report. Subsequent thereto, learned Tribunal examined CW-1/A Rajan Arora, Clerk, Income Tax Department, who proved the income tax",,

returns of Rajneesh Narang for the assessment year 2007-2008 Ex.CW1/1, 2008-2009 Ex.CW1/2 and 2009-2010 Ex.CW1/3. However, no evidence",,

was led by the Insurance Company and said witness was examined again and separate income tax returns of the same period relating to Sonia,,

Narang were proved as Ex.CW1/1, Ex.CW1/2 and Ex.CW1/3 for the aforesaid respective assessment years and qua her income tax returns also, no",,

evidence was led by the Insurance Company.,,

FAOs No.2350 and 4282 of 2013 relating to MACT No.116 of 2009,,

At the very outset, learned counsel for the claimants assiduously submitted that learned Tribunal has wrongly worked upon the earnings of deceased",,

Rajneesh Narang and granted compensation of Rs.61,69,360/-, which is on lower side. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted",,

income tax from the earnings of the deceased to the extent of Rs.1,33,827/-, whereas, tax payable, as evident, is to the extent of Rs.56,058/- only and",,

this amount was only required to be deducted. Besides the same, also it is submitted that as per the judgment passed by the Five Judges' Constitution",,

Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014 titled as National Insurance,,

Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, decided on 31.10.2017, the amount, on account of funeral expenses, is also on lower side. No amount",,

for loss of estate, as such, has been awarded. Even, it was required to give compensation, on account of parental consortium also.",,

On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that learned Tribunal fell in error, while awarding whopping sum of",,

Rs.61,69,360/- to the claimants. It has wrongly relied upon the receipt Ex.C5, which is only acknowledgment receipt of income tax return of 2009-",,

2010, which was filed after eight months, from the date of death of Rajneesh Narang. It is submitted that when the returns, proved in the report",,

received from learned Tribunal, during the pendency of the appeal, are taken into consideration, then it is evident that in Ex.CW1/1, which related to",,

the year 2007-2008, the earnings of deceased Rajneesh Narang were Rs.1,98,140/- and taxable income was Rs.98,140/- and in the next income tax",,

return Ex.CW1/2 for the assessment year 2008-2009, the income of the deceased was Rs.2,73,020/-, whereas in Ex.C5 i.e. income tax return for the",,

assessment year 2009-2010, which was filed eight months after his death, his income inflated to Rs.4,99,842/-. Thus, an exaggerated amount has been",,

worked upon, on the basis of Ex.C5.",,

Learned Tribunal, on the basis of Ex.C5, had taken the income of deceased Rajneesh Narang as Rs.4,99,842/- and gave increase of 50% i.e.",,

Rs.2,49,921/- per annum and in this manner, worked the income of deceased as Rs.7,49,763/- per annum and deducted income tax, to the extent of",,

Rs.1,33,837/- and after so deducting, income was taken as Rs.6,15,936/- per annum. Looking at the number of dependents, the cut of 1/3rd was",,

applied and dependency was thus Rs.6,15,936 â€" Rs.2,05,312 = Rs.4,10,624/-. To this amount, multiplier of '15' was applied and dependency was",,

worked upon as Rs.61,59,360/-. Besides the same, transportation and last rites expenses to the extent of Rs.10,000/- was given. Thus, the total",,

compensation was worked upon as Rs.61,69,360/-.",,

Yes, as submitted, the calculation is wrongly worked upon. Firstly, coming to the earnings of deceased Rajneesh Narang. The Insurance Company has",,

laid much emphasis upon the ITRs for the assessment years 2007-2008 Ex.CW/1 and 2008-2009 Ex.CW1/2 and to compare the same with ITR for,,

the assessment year 2009-2010 Ex.CW1/3, to assert that exaggerated earnings are shown in the ITR filed after the death of Rajneesh Narang.",,

However, this submission holds no ground. It is pertinent to mention that in Ex.CW1/1, earnings of the deceased were Rs.1,98,140/-. In subsequent",,

year 2008-2009, the earnings were Rs.2,73,020/- and it shows that there was substantial increase in earnings. Thereafter, in the year 2009-2010, it",,

was Rs.4,99,842/-. When opportunity was given before the Tribunal to lead evidence, during the pendency of the appeal, the Insurance Company did",,

not lead any evidence to rebut the earnings as shown in these ITRs. No cross-examination was also conducted to dispute the earnings as shown in,,

said ITRs. It should be noted that deceased Rajneesh Narang was in such age group, at the time of his death, when a person works passionately to",,

earn a living, more particularly, it is to be seen, when there is substantial increase in his earnings, as evident from the income tax returns of two",,

Sr. No.,Head under which amount awarded,Amount

1,Loss of dependency,"Rs.62,12,976/-

2,Parental consortium,"Rs.44,000/-

3,Loss of estate,"Rs.16,500/-

4,Funeral expenses,"Rs.16,500/-

,Total,"Rs.62,89,976/-

Sr. No.,Head under which amount awarded,Amount

1,Loss of dependency,"Rs.35,13,604/-

2,Parental consortium,"Rs.44,000/-

3,Loss of estate,"Rs.16,500/

4,Funeral expenses,"Rs.16,500/-

,Total,"Rs.35,90,604/-/-

Therefore, fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/-per annum for nonearning members is not just and reasonable.",,

In view of the judgments in the cases in Puttamma & Ors., R.K. Malik & Anr. and Kishan Gopal & Anr., we are of the view that it is a fit",,

case to increase the notional income by taking into account the inflation, devaluation of the rupee and cost of living. In view of the same,",,

the judgment in the case of Rajendra Singh & Ors.4 relied on by the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company would not,,

render any assistance to the case of the insurance company.,,

In view of the aforesaid observation, the Court took the notional income of the deceased child as Rs.25,000/- and applied multiplier of '15', as",,

prescribed in Schedule II for the claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and worked upon the amount as Rs.3.75 lakh, towards",,

the loss of dependency. Besides the same, Rs.40,000/- each was given to the claimants, who were two in number, towards filial consortium and",,

Rs.15,000/- was given towards funeral expenses. The total compensation was worked upon as Rs.4,70,000/-.",,

Now, reverting to the case in hand, be it noted that Insurance Company has not challenged the Award. In the case in hand, the accident had taken",,

place on 01.12.2008. Ever since the decision of the case, in which, the accident took place in 2004, as under consideration in Kurvan Ansari's case",,

(supra) and also considering the date of death in Krishan Gopal's case (supra), the value of rupee has come down drastically. Besides this fact, it is",,

also essential to take note that deceased Tanisha was studying in Sacred Heart Senior Secondary School, Chandigarh, which is one of the affluent",,

schools of Chandigarh city and thus, considering the same, her chances of placement in life, were relatively bright. Taking all these things into",,

consideration, the notional income can safely be taken to Rs.33,000/-, in the case in hand.",,

In this regard, reference is also been made to the decision of this Court in FAO No.159 of 2015, titled as Beet Nath and others vs. Gulab Singh and",,

others, decided on 10.07.2017, wherein, notional income of a child, who died in an accident, which took place in 2012, was taken as Rs.50,000/-. Even,",,

reference is made judgment passed by this Court in Ranjit Kaur and others vs. Sukhdev Pal and others, 2020(1) RCR (Civil) 778, wherein, notional",,

income of 12 year old child, qua the accident, which took place in 2006, was taken as Rs.40,000/-.",,

Thus, considering the aforesaid case law, the compensation is being re-assessed as herein given:-",,

(i) Notional income â€" Rs.33,000/- per annum",,

(ii) Compensation after multiplier of '15' â€" 33,000x15 = Rs.4,95,000/-",,

(iii) Conventional heads (loss of estate and funeral expenses) â€" Rs.16,500/-each [at the enhanced rate of 10% as per Pranay Sethi's case",,

(supra)],,

The enhanced amount of compensation comes to be Rs.5,28,000/- The compensation already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.3,85,000/-. Therefore, the",,

balance of enhanced amount of compensation, to be paid, is worked upon as Rs.5,28,000 â€" Rs.3,85,000 = Rs.1,43,000/-.",,

FAO No.4529 of 2013 relating to MACT No.119 of 2009,,

In the accident in question, Kanishka Narang, who was occupant of the ill-fated car, had also suffered injuries. As per version of the claimants, she",,

had suffered head injury. PW-1 Mohinder Singh Narang, who is grandfather of Kanishka Narang, had proved the medical bills, which are Ex.C1 to",,

Ex.C112, Ex.C114 and Ex.C116 to Ex.C121, the total whereof is Rs.2,04,055/-, which is the amount incurred upon treatment of Kanishka Narang. As",,

observed by the Tribunal, these bills have not been disputed by the respondents. Besides the said amount of bills, the Tribunal had granted additional",,

amount of Rs.20,000/-, on account of pain and sufferings, Rs.5,000/- on account of special diet and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. Thus,",,

the total compensation, which was granted, on account of injuries sustained by Kanishka Narang is Rs.2,34,055/-. This amount has been asserted by",,

the claimants to be on lower side.,,

It is pertinent to mention that from the perusal of the medical documents, coming on record, it is evident that injured Kanishka Narang was extended",,

treatment from various hospitals, such like, DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, Chaitanya Hospital, Chandigarh, Fortis Hospital, Mohali and Civil Hospital. The",,

discharge cards reflect head injury to have been sustained by the claimant and she suffered multiple fractures. Thus, it is quite obvious that Kanishka",,

Narang must have passed through lot of trauma, more particularly, when she never had the comforting hands of her parents, who had died in the",,

accident in question. Lot of visits to hospitals must have been made by her and her family. She must have remained away from her school, for a",,

considerable period, which affected her education. Thus, considering all these aforesaid aspects, an additional amount of Rs.1,25,000/- is hereby",,

granted, besides the medical bills of Rs.2,04,055/-. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.2,04,055 + Rs.1,25,000 = Rs.3,29,055/-.",,

In the light of aforesaid discussion, FAOs No.2350 of 2013 stands allowed, whereas FAO No.4283 of 2013 stands dismissed. FAO No.2352 of 2013",,

stands dismissed, whereas FAO No.4282 of 2013 stands partly allowed, with the above-stated modification, in the amount so awarded. However, the",,

amount reduced, shall be deducted from the amount paid to claimant No.2-Mohinder Singh Narang, as per the Tribunal. FAOs No.2351 and 4529 of",,

2013 stands allowed in the above-stated terms.,,

The enchanced amount awarded in FAOs No.2350 and 2351 of 2013, shall be payable to both the claimants in the ratio of 70% to Kanishka Narang",,

and 30% to Mohinder Singh Narang, along with the interest, as ordered by the Tribunal. However, the enhanced amount awarded in FAO No.4529 of",,

2013, shall be payable to claimant Kanishka Narang, along with the interest, as ordered by the Tribunal.",,