FAO-522-2017 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 Smt. Mukesh and others Ramdev and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-1677-CII Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of accompanying appeal. by an affidavit, the same is accompanying appeal is condoned. FAO-522-2017 1. enhancement of compensation of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated No. 104 of 2015/12.10.2015 filed under Section 166 of the Motor 2017 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Smt. Mukesh and others Versus Ramdev and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. SS Shekhawat, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 3 NIDHI GUPTA, J. CII-2017 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of accompanying appeal. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed; and delay of accompanying appeal is condoned. 2017 The present appeal has been filed by the enhancement of compensation of ₹10,07,000/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) vide Award dated 01.08. No. 104 of 2015/12.10.2015 filed under Section 166 of the Motor IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-522-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.04.2025 .…Appellants ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. SS Shekhawat, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insurance Co. Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the For the reasons stated in the application which is supported and delay of 35 days in filing the The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking 10,07,000/- granted by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 01.08.2016 passed in MACT Case No. 104 of 2015/12.10.2015 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the days in filing the For the reasons stated in the application which is supported days in filing the claimants seeking granted by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2016 passed in MACT Case No. 104 of 2015/12.10.2015 filed under Section 166 of the Motor RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-522-2017 (O&M) Vehicles Act, 1988 minor son; and iii) to be 42 years old at the time of 2. basis of pleadings deceased-Surender had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on negligent driving of Truck/ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No. 1 respondent No. 3 compensation of filing the claim petition till actual realization. 3. compensation 2017 (O&M) -2- Vehicles Act, 1988. The four claimants are minor son; and iii) old-aged parents of deceased to be 42 years old at the time of death. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that Surender had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on negligent driving of Truck/Trailer bearing registration No. HR hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No. 1-Ramdev; owned by respondent No. 2; and insured by respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 9% per annum fro of filing the claim petition till actual realization. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation inter alia on the grounds: (a) that the deceased was a driver by profession and used to drive a Canter. It is submitted that although this fact was proved by the appellants before the learned Tribunal, yet income of the deceased has been as only ₹7000/- per month. L per the Minimum Wages applicable at the relevant time, income of the deceased ought to have been taken per month; (b) that nothing has been awarded towards further prospects. It is submitted The four claimants are the: i) widow; ii) 11-year-old parents of deceased-Surender who was stated Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the and evidence adduced before it concluded that Surender had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 24.06.2015, due to rash and bearing registration No. HR-55-U-5144 hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by Ramdev; owned by respondent No. 2; and insured by Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual realization. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of he deceased was a driver by profession and used to drive a Canter. It is submitted that although this fact was proved by the appellants before the learned Tribunal, yet income of the deceased has been assessed on the lower side per month. Learned counsel submits that as per the Minimum Wages applicable at the relevant time, income of the deceased ought to have been taken as₹9,450/- othing has been awarded by the learned Tribunal It is submitted that at the time of old who was stated Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the and evidence adduced before it concluded that Surender had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor , due to rash and 5144 hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by Ramdev; owned by respondent No. 2; and insured by Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal awarded m the date Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of he deceased was a driver by profession and used to drive a Canter. It is submitted that although this fact was proved by the appellants before the learned Tribunal, yet on the lower side earned counsel submits that as per the Minimum Wages applicable at the relevant time, by the learned Tribunal that at the time of RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-522-2017 (O&M) 4. modified, in accordance with law. 5. opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellants income of the deceased has Tribunal. In this regard, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Company, has produced in Court the Notification as per which the Minimum Wages admissible to a Worker is of the deceased was assessed @ side. As regards, the other contention appellants, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 fairly admits that the claimants are entitled to future prospects, loss of consortium additions have to be made in the amount of compensation. 6. 7. case file in great detail. 2017 (O&M) -3- accident, the deceased was about 42 years of age and therefore, learned Tribunal ought to have made addition of 25% towards future prospects; and (c) that nothing has been granted by the learned Tribunal towards loss of consortium and It is accordingly, prayed that the impugned Award be in accordance with law. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellants income of the deceased has been correctly . In this regard, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Company, has produced in Court the Notification issued by the State of Haryan as per which the Minimum Wages admissible to a is ₹6,203/- approximately per month. It is submitted that income of the deceased was assessed @ ₹7,000/- per month which on the higher regards, the other contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 admits that the claimants are entitled to future prospects, loss of consortium, and loss of estate. It is accord have to be made in the amount of compensation. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and case file in great detail. accident, the deceased was about 42 years of age and learned Tribunal ought to have made addition of 25% towards future prospects; and that nothing has been granted by the learned Tribunal towards loss of consortium and loss of estate. It is accordingly, prayed that the impugned Award be Learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellants and submits that correctly assessed by the learned . In this regard, learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, has produced in Court the relevant Minimum Wages issued by the State of Haryana applicable as on 01.11.2015, as per which the Minimum Wages admissible to a Skilled Matriculate per month. It is submitted that income per month which on the higher raised by learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company very admits that the claimants are entitled to future prospects, loss of loss of estate. It is accordingly, not denied that the said have to be made in the amount of compensation. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the accident, the deceased was about 42 years of age and learned Tribunal ought to have made addition of that nothing has been granted by the learned Tribunal It is accordingly, prayed that the impugned Award be Insurance Company, and submits that assessed by the learned Insurance relevant Minimum Wages a applicable as on 01.11.2015, atriculate per month. It is submitted that income per month which on the higher raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company very admits that the claimants are entitled to future prospects, loss of that the said RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-522-2017 (O&M) 8. that the profession and income of the deceased agriculturist Tribunal. However, perusal of the record show statement was without any proof whatsoever in support evidence has been produced by the appellants to show that was an agriculturist and dairy farmer. 9. the income of the deceased regards, future prospects, needless to say that as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 deceased being 42 years of age at the time of death, future prospects have to be added @ 25%. The learned Tribunal has further correctly made deduction of 1/4 as the deceased was 42 years of age at the time of accident, multiplier of 14 has correctly been applied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Corporation, further reveals that nothing has been awarded towards loss of consortium claimants is entitled to consortium @ also reveals that an amount of claimants towards love and affection. However, the claimants are not 2017 (O&M) -4- It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the profession and income of the deceased agriculturist has been duly proved by the appellants before the learned Tribunal. However, perusal of the record show was made by the claimants that the deceased was a driver without any proof whatsoever in support evidence has been produced by the appellants to show that was an agriculturist and dairy farmer. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in the income of the deceased as assessed @ regards, future prospects, needless to say that as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in any Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 deceased being 42 years of age at the time of death, future prospects have to be added @ 25%. The learned Tribunal has further correctly deduction of 1/4th given the fact that there are four claimants; and as the deceased was 42 years of age at the time of accident, multiplier of 14 has correctly been applied in conformity with the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transp Corporation, Law Finder Doc Id # 188882. further reveals that nothing has been awarded towards loss of consortium. In accordance with Pranay Sethi’s claimants is entitled to consortium @ ₹48,000/ also reveals that an amount of ₹1,00,000/ claimants towards love and affection. However, the claimants are not It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the profession and income of the deceased as a driver and been duly proved by the appellants before the learned Tribunal. However, perusal of the record shows that only a bald made by the claimants that the deceased was a driver without any proof whatsoever in support. Even no documentary evidence has been produced by the appellants to show that the deceased the above, no ground is made out to interfere in assessed @ ₹7000/- per month. As regards, future prospects, needless to say that in conformity with the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance any Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the deceased being 42 years of age at the time of death, future prospects have to be added @ 25%. The learned Tribunal has further correctly given the fact that there are four claimants; and as the deceased was 42 years of age at the time of accident, multiplier of in conformity with the law as laid down Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport 188882. The impugned Award further reveals that nothing has been awarded towards loss of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), each of the 48,000/-. The impugned Award 1,00,000/- has been awarded to the claimants towards love and affection. However, the claimants are not RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. FAO-522-2017 (O&M) entitled to them @ ₹48,000/ estate; as such, estate, in accordance with law. 10. allowed and re-assessed as under: Details Income Future prospects Deduction Monthly loss of dependency Multiplier Total loss of dependency Loss of consortium Love and affection Transportation and Funeral expenses Loss of Estate Total compensation Interest Enhanced amount 11. 03.04.2025 rishu 2017 (O&M) -5- to the said amount as loss of consortium has been granted to 48,000/- each. Even nothing has been awarded towards loss of as such, the claimants are entitled to estate, in accordance with law. In view of the discussion made above, the present appeal is and the compensation awarded t assessed as under:- Before the Tribunal ₹7000/- per month Future prospects Nil 1/4th (₹1,750/-) Monthly loss of dependency ₹5,250/- 14 Total loss of dependency 5250 x 12 x 14 = ₹ 8,82,200/- Loss of consortium -- Love and ₹1,00,000/- Transportation and Funeral ₹25,000/- Loss of Estate NIL compensation ₹10,07,000/- 9% per annum Enhanced ₹3,23,500/- (1330500-100700) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 03.04.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable the said amount as loss of consortium has been granted to Even nothing has been awarded towards loss of the claimants are entitled to ₹18,000/- towards loss of In view of the discussion made above, the present appeal is the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimants is Revised compensation ₹7000/- per month 25% (₹8,750/-) 1/4th(₹2187.5) ₹6,562.5/- 14 6562.5 x 12 x 14 = ₹ 11,02,500/- ₹48000 x 4 = ₹1,92,000/- NIL ₹18,000/- ₹18,000/- ₹13,30,500/- 9% per annum 100700) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No o the appellant/claimants is RISHU KATARIA 2025.04.05 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.