On December 14, 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while awarding compensation to the family of deceased, observed that the claimants would be entitled to the future prospects to an extent of 40% and the tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation for the loss of consortium to the widow, children and mother of the deceased.
Brief Facts:
The instant appeal was preferred by the claimants i.e., widow, two daughters and a son of Dr. Sandeep Kumar Garg (deceased), aged 38 years, who died in a motor vehicular accident, to impugn the award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bathinda. The respondent no. 4 (mother of the deceased) who too was a claimant, filed the cross-objections and prayed for the reassessment and enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. On the basis of material and other evidences provided, a sum of Rs.17,60,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants. This amount was ordered to be paid jointly and severally by the respondents No.1 to 3 along with an interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 15.11.2011 till the actual realization. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, from the compensation amount, was awarded towards the mother of the deceased and out of the remaining awarded amount of Rs.16,60,000/-, amount of Rs.5,000/- was ordered to be given to the widow of deceased as funeral expenses and remaining amount was to be disbursed to appellants/claimants in equal shares. The appellants being dissatisfied by the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal and for the condonation of delay of 667 days in filing the same, filed the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deceased was a qualified doctor. He joined Government Services in Haryana from where he resigned and started his private practice at Rampura Phul, Punjab. It was further submitted that the deceased was not an income tax payee, however, it was a matter of record and not disputed by either of the parties that the deceased was indeed in Government Service in Haryana, a qualified doctor, and was earning about Rs.35,000/- per month. The income assessed in the sum of Rs.13,000/- was meagre and deserved to be enhanced. The counsel urged that no addition towards the future prospects was made by the Tribunal while assessing the amount of compensation. Moreover, while referring to the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Pranay Sethi, he finally submitted that even under other conventional heads like loss of estate and funeral expenses, the compensation awarded was not in consonance with the settled ratio of law.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for respondent no. 4/cross-objector i.e., the mother of the deceased, argued that his client being the mother of the deceased, was completely dependent upon her deceased son for her sustenance, but due to his untimely death there was no one to even take care of her basic needs as the other claimants had abandoned her and left her alone to fend herself. Therefore, she being a legal heir of the deceased was entitled to equal share in the amount of compensation along with other claimants.
Moreover, the counsel for respondent No. 3 i.e., the Insurance company submitted that the income of the deceased i.e., Rs.13,000/- had been inadequately assessed. No evidence was led with respect to the proof of income of the deceased having much less income tax returns, and hence in the circumstances, the monthly income assessed in the sum of Rs.13,000/- did not warrant any interference.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that the income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.13,000/- per month, however, since it was not disputed and was a matter of record that the deceased was a qualified doctor, so, the Court deemed it fit to enhance the monthly income of the deceased from Rs.13,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The court further observed that the claimants would also be entitled to the future prospects to an extent of 40%. The Tribunal had also erred in not awarding any compensation for the loss of consortium to the widow, children and the mother of the deceased, i.e., Rs.40,000/- each as per the settled law. Moreover, the claimants were made entitled to a 10% enhancement qua the above-mentioned conventional heads. Hence, the amount of compensation under the conventional heads stood modified to Rs.16,500/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses. The court added that the claimants, were entitled to Rs.44,000/- each, for loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium.
The Decision of the Court:
The present appeal, along with the cross objects, was disposed of. A total sun of Rs.40,33,000/- was provided as compensation along with an interest @ 7.5% per annum from 15.11.2011 till the actual realization.
Case Title: Seema Garg and others Vs. Mandeep Singh and others
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul
Case No.- XOBJC-26-2021 (O&M) in/and FAO-1898-2016 (O&M)
Advocate for Appellants: Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Bhinder and Mr. Dilraj Singh Bhinder
Advocate for Respondents: Mr. Mohit Sardana, Mr. Ashish Singh, Mr. Nigam K. Bhardwaj, and Mr. Siddharth Gupta.
Read Judgement ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
0 Comments