Keeping in view the fact that nothing has been held in Sarla Verma's case (supra) declining the compensation in a case where deceased had been more than 70 years of age I adopt the multiplier of 4 to assess compensation in this case.
IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB ABD HARYANA
(Before Vijender Singh Malik, J.)
Kulwant Kaur v. Harpreet Singh and ors.
FAO No. 3997 of 2011 (O&M)
Decided on September 12, 2013.
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
This is an appeal brought by Kulwant Kaur seeking enhancement of compensation. On the death of Karnail Singh having occurred in road side accident on 04.07.2007, Kulwant Kaur, his wife brought a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 20.04.2010 allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- as compensation.
Karnail Singh has been 72 years of age. He was owner of Virdi Engineering Works, Booth No. 542, Motor Market, NAC, Mani Manjra. His monthly income was Rs. 32,500/-. He was income tax payee. Claiming herself to be the sole dependent of the deceased, a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs is claimed as compensation.
The respondents have resisted the claim petition. They denied the averments of the claimants regarding age, occupation and income of the deceased. The other averments have also been denied. The claimant is denied to deserve a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs as compensation and the claim petition is prayed to be dismissed.
Taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,55,593/- per annum as per the Income Tax Return, a sum of Rs. Rs. 77,500/- was held to be the annual dependancy of the claimant. Applying the multiplier of 3 a sum of Rs. 2,32,500/- is found to have been lost by the claimants in the death of Karnail Singh. To it a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is added as loss of consortium and Rs. 3,000/- for funeral expenses and a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- is awarded as compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the multiplier of 3 is not justified. According to him, though the deceased was 72 years of age yet the multiplier of 5 should have been adopted by learned Tribunal to assess compensation.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted on the other hand that adequate amount has already been awarded as compensation to the claimants. According to him, no further enhancement thereto is permissible. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, the multiplier of 5 is the last multiplier recommended for a victim dying in the age group of 66 to 70 years. No multiplier is laid down thereafter. It is also not mentioned there that the compensation should not be allowed in a suitable case where the deceased had been of the age of above 70 years.
In the second schedule appended to the Act, the multiplier of 5 is suggested for any and everyone dying above the age of 65 years. This schedule is found to have been faulty in various judgments by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. For reference, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra 1996 (2) R.R.R. 718 can be cited. The fault is apparent as for the victim dying in the age group of 60 to 65 years the multiplier is of 5 and the same is the multiplier for any person dying above 65 years.
Keeping in view the fact that nothing has been held in Sarla Verma's case (supra) declining the compensation in a case where deceased had been more than 70 years of age I adopt the multiplier of 4 to assess compensation in this case. Multiplying the annual dependancy of Rs. 77,500/- with 4, I find a sum of Rs. 3,10,000/- as the amount lost by the appellant in the death of Karnail Singh. Adding to it a sum Rs. 20,000/- under the conventional heads, I assess a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- as compensation for the death of Karnail Singh in the aforesaid accident.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2,40,000/- to Rs. 3,30,000,/- which shall be payable to the appellant with interest and under other terms as settled by learned Tribunal.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment