2017(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2264 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1305

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Before

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal

FAO No. 2539 of2015(O&M)

Kanta Devi & Ors.

v.

Krishan Kumar & Ors.

Decided on 27/07/2017

For the Appellants:                    Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate.

For the Respondent No.3:         Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate.

AccidentFuture ProspectsMere fact that a reference against is pending before Supreme Court is not sufficient to deny the benefit

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166–Accident–Future Prospects-The mere fact that a
reference is pending before a Larger Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court is not
sufficient to deny the benefit of future prospects till the judgment in Rajesh and
others case is varied or set aside.
                                                              (Para 7)

CASES CITED:

  1. Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 3006 : 2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2274 (SC). (Para 3)
  2. Vimal Kanwar & Ors., v. Kishore Dan & Ors., 2013(3) Law Herald (SC) 2154. (Para 3)
  3. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa, SLP (C) No.16735 of 2014, decided on 02.07.2014.(Para 4)

 

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.: (Oral) – The claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewari (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in regard to death of Narender Singh in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 28.07.2012.

  1. The Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs.5,300/- per month, deducted 1/4th
    towards personal and living expenses, adopted a multiplier of 18 to compute loss of
    dependency to the tune of Rs.8,58,600/- In addition, following compensation has been
    awarded under conventional heads and for medical expenses:-
  2. Treatment Expenses 1,71,985/-
  3. Special diet & attendant Nil
  4. Loss of consortium 10,000/-
  5. Loss of estate 10,000/-
  6. Expenses of last rites & transportation 10,000/-
  7. Loss of love and affection 10,000/-
  8. Total dependency 8,58,6007-
    Total                                                Rs.10,70,585/-

 

  1. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has not allowed benefit of increase
    in income for future prospects to the extent of 50% in the light of judgment of Hon’ble the
    Supreme Court Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, [2013(4) Law Herald (SC)
    3006 : 2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2274 (SC)] : 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 170, Compensation
    awarded under conventional heads needs re-look and enhancement in the light of judgments
    Rajesh and others case (supra) and Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and
    others, [2013(3) Law Herald (SC) 2154]:
    2013 (2) RCR (Civil) 945.
  2. Counsel representing the insurance company has seriously contested claim of the
    appellants for increase in income towards future prospects on the premise that the matter with
    regard to future prospects is pending consideration before a Larger Bench of Hon’ble the
    Supreme Court in view of reference made in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa,
    SLP (C) No.16735 of 2014, decided on 02.07.2014.
  3. In the alternative, it is argued that in case benefit of future prospects is extended to the
    appellants, amount representing future prospects may be deposited in a Fixed Deposit
    Receipt payable subject to outcome of reference by the Larger Bench. He has further
    submitted that the Tribunal has assessed just and reasonable compensation warranting no
    interference by this Court.
  4. i have heard counsel for the parties, perused the paper-book particularly the impugned award.
  5. The Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased at Rs.5,300/- per month by considering
    him to be a skilled worker. Had the deceased remained alive, he would not have stagnated at
    that income throughout his life more particularly in the circumstances that he has left behind
    family consisting of his widow, two minor children aged 3 years and 3 months and the parents.
    The mere fact that a reference is pending before a Larger Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court
    is not sufficient to deny the benefit of future prospects till the judgment in Rajesh and others
    case (supra) is varied or set aside. For this reason, contention of the insurance company to
    restrain release of the amount of future prospects is also not tenable.
  6. The deceased was 25 years of age. After extending benefit of future prospects to the extent
    of 50%, loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,87,900/- [Rs.11,44,800/- (Rs.5,300 x 12 x 18) +
    5,72,400/- (50% future prospects) – Rs.4,29,300/- (1/4th deduction towards personal
    expenses)].
  7. Under conventional heads, the claimants shall be entitled to compensation as under:-
  8. Loss of consortium to the widow 1,00,0007-
  9. Loss of love and affection to the children 1,50,000/-(to be shared in equal)
  10. Loss of love and affection to mother 50,0007-
  11. Expenses on funeral 25,0007-
  12. Loss of estate 25,0007-

 

  1. The compensation of Rs.1,71,985/- awarded by the Tribunal towards expenses on
    treatment of the injured/victim (since deceased) is ordered to be affirmed.
  2. In view of the above, total compensation comes to Rs.18,09,885/- and the enhanced
    compensation is Rs.7,39,3007- (Rs.18,09,8857- – Rs.10,70,5857-). The enhanced
    compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
    realization, payable to children of the deceased in equal share except an amount of
    1,00,0007- towards consortium to the widow and Rs.50,0007- for loss of love and affection
    to the mother. The amount falling to share of the children shall be deposited in a Fixed Deposit
    Receipt for a period of 3 years or till they attain the age of majority, whichever is later. The
    claimants shall not be entitled to raise any loan against the Fixed Deposit Receipts.
  3. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.