High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kamla Devi And Others vs Madan Lal And Others on 11 December, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamla Devi And Others vs Madan Lal And Others on 11 December, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH


                         F. A. O. No.2609 of 2006
                        Date of Decision: December 11, 2008



Kamla Devi and others                 ...........Appellants

                   Versus


Madan Lal and others                  ..........Respondents



Coram:        Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina


Present:      Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj,Advocate for the
             appellants.
             Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the
             New India Assurance Company Ltd.
                          * * *

Sabina, J.

This is an appeal against the award dated 31.1.2006

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred

to as `the Tribunal’) seeking enhancement of compensation .

The case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 16.11.2004,

Jai Narain, deceased was coming from his village Hanori to Karnal on his

motor cycle bearing No. HR-05-F-8632. At about 7.30 A.M, when he tried

to turn towards Karnal after giving signal, a Truck bearing No. HR-45-9595

driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner struck against his

motor cycle. As a result of this, Jai Narain succumbed to the injuries at the

spot. Hence, the claim petition was filed.

Notice of the claim petition was issued to the

respondents and they filed their written statements. On the pleadings of the

parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-
F. A. O. No.2609 of 2006 -2-

“1. Whether the accident in question took place due to the rash

and negligent driving of truck No. HR-45-9595, resulting ino

death of Jai Narain? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to

receive any compensation, if so how much and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the claimants have got no locus standi to file and

maintain the present petition?OPR

4. Whether the present claim petition is bad on account of mis-

joinder of necessary parties? OPR

5. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not

holding a genuine and effective driving licence at the time of

accident? OPR3

6. Relief.”

Parties led their evidence in support of their case.

Learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, allowed Rs. 7,59,096/- as

compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount

of compensation, claimants have filed the present appeal.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of

the opinion, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

In the present case, the appellants are seeking

enhancement of compensation allowed by the learned Tribunal vide the

impugned award. As per Exhibit PD, salary of the deceased was Rs.7517/-

and after deduction, his carry home salary was Rs. 5800/-. Learned Tribunal

has, however, calculated the dependency of the Claimants on the basis of

income of the deceased at Rs.7300/- per month, after deducting Rs 217/- ,

which were being deducted from the salary of the deceased towards G.I.S,
F. A. O. No.2609 of 2006 -3-

F.A,. P.L.I, W.L.F, NEPEU and RecCib. Instead of taking into consideration

the net payable salary of the deceased, the learned Tribunal took the salary

of the deceased as Rs.7300/- p.m. although it was required to take into

consideration, net payable salary of the deceased after deductions for

calculating the dependency. However, the Insurance Company has not

challenged the impugned award by filing any appeal. A cut of one third out

of this income was applied for personal expenses of the deceased and Rs.

4866/- per month were treated as dependency of the claimants and

compensation was calculated after applying a multiplier of `13′. The age of

the deceased was 48 years. An amount of Rs. 7.59,096/- was allowed to the

claimants as compensation. Although claimants were not allowed

compensation on account of funeral expenses and loss of consortium in a

separate head yet keeping in view the fact that the Tribunal has allowed

compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,59,096/- to the appellants by taking salary

of the deceased at a higher rate, in the facts and circumstances of the present

case, there is no necessity to enhance the amount of compensation. The

impugned order, thus, does not call for interference.

Accordingly, the appeal is being devoid of merit and the

same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

( Sabina )
Judge
December 11, 2008
arya