Posted On by &filed under High Court, Punjab-Haryana High Court.


Punjab-Haryana High Court
Birmati And Others vs Mohd. Rashid @ Kalu Ram And Others on 3 August, 2009
FAO No.4917 of 2008 (O&M)                   [1 ]



     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
               HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
                          ...

FAO No.4917 of 2008 (O&M)

Decided on : August 03, 2009

Birmati and others … Appellants

VERSUS

Mohd. Rashid @ Kalu Ram and others … Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

Present: Mrs.Varsha Gahlawat, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr.Paul S.Saini, Advocate for
respondents No.3 – Insurance Company.

A.N.JINDAL, J.-

This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed

against the award dated 28.5.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Rohtak, whereby, the claimants/appellants (herein referred as ` the

claimants’) were awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, on account of the death

of Mehar Singh, aged about 55 years in a motor vehicle accident.

Without challenging the multiplier method, they have only

urged that the income of the deceased has not been assessed properly at the

time of assessing the compensation. It is also contended that on the other

heads as well, meagre compensation was awarded.

Heard.

The deceased being posted in the Co-operative Sugar Mills,

Rohtak was drawing salary of Rs.7227/- per month. He was 55 years old at
FAO No.4917 of 2008 (O&M) [2 ]

the time of death. However, since, it was seasonal industry, therefore, in off

season, he was paid only Rs.3613/- per month i.e, half salary. In this

manner, it appears that the Tribunal has rightly calculated the income at

Rs.65,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount as self-

expenses, the net dependency comes to be Rs.43,360/-, per annum and after

applying multiplier of 9, net compensation comes to Rs.3,90,340/-.

Learned counsel for the claimants has urged that during the off

season, the deceased being an agriculturist and having a tractor must be

earning sufficient income to pull on his family, but in the absence of any

evidence, it is difficult to hold that he had been doing extra work in the off-

season period. Thus, finding no fault with the observations of the Tribunal,

the argument of the claimants is not sustained. However, the Tribunal

appears to have not made any justification while assessing Rs.2,000/-

towards funeral expenses, Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/-

for the loss of consortium, which appear to be too meagre. Moreover, no

amount has been awarded on account of transportation of the dead body, as

such, the compensation deserves to be paid or enhanced on the aforesaid

heads.

Consequently, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.10,000/- on

account of funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of estate,

Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- on account of

transportation charges, over and above the awarded amount.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with the above

modification in the impugned award. However, it is directed that the

enhanced amount shall be paid to the claimants within 45 days of the
FAO No.4917 of 2008 (O&M) [3 ]

receipt of a certified copy of this order by the respondents, failing which the

claimants would be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount at the same

rate as awarded by the Tribunal.

August 03, 2009                              ( A.N.JINDAL )
`gian'                                            JUDGE
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

89 queries in 0.144 seconds.