Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2002 DAILYLAW 1653 (PNJ)

BHATI DEVI AND ORS. v. ROOP CHAND AND ORS.

FAO/3030/2002 · 2026-07-13

Parmod Goyal

body2002

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 267 FAO-3030-2002 Decided on. 13.07.2026 BHATI DEVI AND ORS. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS ROOP CHAND AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. *** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants who are wife, two children of Fateh Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), who died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 23.04.1998, on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving tanker bearing registration No. HNX-4547, being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- awarded vide impugned award dated 03.08.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), being not in accordance with their entitlement. 2. Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellants- claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of brevity. POONAM 2026.07.15 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3030-2002 -2- 3. In present case, learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation: Income Rs.3,000/- per month Deduction 1/3rd Multiplier 15 Loss of dependency Rs.3,60,000 (Rs.2,000x12x15) Loss of consortium Rs.5,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.3,70,000/- 4. It is the case of appellants-claimants that deceased was owner of agricultural land and a truck and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by plying the truck and cultivating the agricultural land. In order to prove that the deceased was an agriculturist Bhati Devi, wife of deceased appeared as PW1 and placed reliance upon Ex. P1 copy of jamabandi for the year 1995- 96, showing deceased to be owner of the land to the extent of 1/6th share measuring 285 canals 15 marlas. Ex. P2 photocopy of registration certificate showing deceased to be owner of a tractor mark Swaraj 735 bearing registration No.HNM-1866 and Ex. P3 photocopy of registration certificate of truck bearing no. G.J.I/TT-5045 showing ownership of deceased was also placed on record. The appellants- claimants have asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by plying the truck and from agriculture. However, except for showing that deceased were owner of agricultural land to the extent of 2.44 acres (47 kanals 8 marlas), a truck and a tractor no other documentary evidence has been placed on record to show that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The income from agriculture and plying POONAM 2026.07.15 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3030-2002 -3- of truck would continue to fall in the hands of appellants-claimants. Therefore, income of deceased to the extent of managerial skills alone can be taken into consideration. 5. The learned Tribunal has taken income of deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month by taking him to be a skilled person. However, I find that the income of the deceased has to be taken little higher than that of skilled person being in managerial capacity. Accordingly, income of the deceased is enhanced to Rs.4,000/- per month from Rs.3,000/- per month. Keeping in view age of deceased to be 40 years at the time of the accident multiplier of ‘15’ would be applicable as per the judgment of ‘Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121. Since the deceased is survived by three dependents i.e. wife and two children, therefore 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses needs to be deducted for calculating loss of dependency. Similarly, keeping in view age of the deceased, 40% towards future prospects ought to be added to the income of the deceased in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 (16) SCC 680. Accordingly, appellant- claimant No.1 shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of spousal consortium @ Rs.40,000/-, appellants-claimants No.2 and 3 shall be entitled to compensation for loss of parental consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate payable to appellants-claimants. It is however made clear that in case Hon’ble Supreme Court answer the reference regarding quantum of compensation under conventional head made in Hasina Yasmin & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC Online SC 2919 in favour of POONAM 2026.07.15 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3030-2002 -4- appellants, appellants shall be free to seek said amount by moving appropriate application in this regard. 6. Accordingly, reworked compensation is as under :- Income Rs. 4,000/- per month Rs.4,000/- per month Future Prospects 40% (4000+1600) Rs.5,600/- Deduction 1/3 (5600-1867) Rs.3,733/- Multiplier 15 15 Total loss of dependency Rs.3,733x12x15 Rs.6,71,940- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of Spousal consortium to claimant No.1 Rs.40,000/- Loss of parental consortium to claimant Nos. 2 & 3 Rs.40,000x2 Rs.80,000/- Total Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.8,21,940/- Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,70,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.8,21,940/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.3,70,000/- (awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.4,51,940/- 7. Appellants/claimants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount except under the conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate. Under these heads interest shall be payable from August 2017 onwards. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award. POONAM 2026.07.15 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3030-2002 -5- 8. Present appeal is allowed in above terms. 9. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE 13.07.2026 poonam Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No POONAM 2026.07.15 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document