IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.2222 of 2007
Date of decision:- 24.02.2009.
Jarnail Singh alias Jaila and another ...Appellants
Versus
Tersem Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate
for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
JASWANT SINGH J.(Oral)
This appeal, for enhancement of compensation, has been filed
by the appellants-claimants against the award dated 09.01.2007 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short ‘Tribunal’)
whereby they were awarded a sum of Rs.1,37,560/- as compensation on
account of death of their unmarried daughter Amarjit Kaur, aged 30 years in
a motor vehicular accident, that took place on 27.06.2005 at 12.00 O’clock
in the day time when the deceased Amarjit Kaur alighted from the bus
through the front door and was going on her correct side on the road. The
driver of the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and without
blowing any horn, struck the offending vehicle into Amarjit Kaur, as a result
of which she was crushed under the wheels of the offending vehicle. She
succumbed to her injuries on the spot.
Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana vide its
Award dated 27.07.2005 has held that the appellants i.e. parents namely
FAO No.2222 of 2007 -2-
Jarnail Singh alias Jaila and Gurdev Kaur wife of Jarnail Singh were only
the legal heirs of deceased Amarjit Kaur and were awarded compensation of
Rs.1,37,560/- in equal shares alongwith interest @ 7.5%. All the
respondents i.e. driver, owner and Insurance Company were jointly and
severally held liable to pay the compensation.
The sole contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants
is that the learned Tribunal has wrongly determined the dependency of the
appellants-parents as one-third on the assumption that their unmarried
deceased daughter would get married in near future.
By referring to Ex.A5 dated 27.02.2004 i.e. appointment letter
of the deceased Amarjit Kaur as Peon in the office of District Education
Officer, Ludhiana in the category of physically handicapped, learned
counsel for the appellants submits that sufficient evidence was brought on
record that the deceased Amarjit Kaur was physically handicapped and
therefore, it is contended that her chances of getting married were bleak.
None has appeared on behalf of the respondents to assist the
Court.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the
record, in my opinion there is merit in the submission of the learned counsel
for the appellants.
It has come on record that deceased Amarjit Kaur, at the time of
her accidental death was 30 years of age and unmarried. As per Exhibit A-
5, she was admittedly recruited as Peon in Government Education High
School Rumi, District Ludhiana against physically handicapped category.
Learned Trial Court while assessing the dependency of the appellants has
imposed a cut of 2/3rd for the reason that she was likely to get married and
FAO No.2222 of 2007 -3-
maintain her own family. In arriving at the said conclusion, reliance has
been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported as Jagdish Versus
Sukhdev, 2001(4), Recent Civil Reports, 520 (P & H).
In my considered opinion, the said judgement is not applicable
to the facts of the present case. In Jagdish’s case (supra), the deceased was
an able bodied man whereas in the present case deceased Amarjit Kaur was
30 years old handicapped female. It is a matter of common knowledge that
to get a match for handicapped girl is a difficult proposition as their
handicap ordinarily obstructs the performance of their duties as a wife and
mother and in other house-hold chores. It is for this reason, there is a
general reluctance on the part of normal bridegrooms to tie nupital knot
with such handicap girls. Therefore, I find force in the submission of
learned counsel that two-third cut imposed while determining the
dependency on the premises that the deceased Amarjit Kaur would get
married in near future, was not correct.
In view of the above, I hold that the appellants would be
entitled to ½ income of the deceased towards the dependency instead of
1/3rd . Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed and the annual dependency
is re-fixed by taking monthly carry home salary of the deceased as
Rs.4080/- (as assessed by the Tribunal) and multiplying the same by 12 x ½
i.e. Rs. 4080 x ½ x 11 = Rs.24,480/-. Further, taking into consideration the
age of the parents being in the age group of 50 to 55 years, the learned
Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 8.
Accordingly, the total compensation works out to be
Rs.1,95,840/- (Rs. 24,480/- x 8). The enhanced compensation i.e.
FAO No.2222 of 2007 -4-
Rs. 1,95,840/- minus 1,37,560/- = Rs. 58,280/-, rounded off to Rs.60,000/-
and shall carry the interest @ 7.5% as awarded by the learned Tribunal, to
be disbursed to the claimants in equal shares.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
February 24, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE