The Tribunal further numbered that the driver and the owner of offending vehicle have placed on record the driving licence of the driver, valid insurance policy, public carrier permit and the registration certificate of the offending vehicle and the appellant having failed to lead any evidence to prove that the terms and companyditions of the insurance policy were violated, cannot be absolved of its liability.
The deduction towards personal expenses was kept at 50 as the respondent Nos.
205 of 2014.
47693/2018 has been preferred by the insurance companypany and the latter appeal arising out of S.L.P. No./2020 Diary No.
and the total companypensation was companyputed at Rs.17,40,532/ along with interest at the rate of 9 per annum from the date of institution of petition.
Further, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed loss of dependency on takehome salary instead of the drawing salary and without companysidering the family pension received by the deceased had she been alive.
Resultantly, the insurance companypanyappellant was number liable to pay companypensation.
1 and 2 companytended that being major and also earning by itself cannot be regarded as ineligibility to claim companypensation.
1 and 2 are number entitled to companypensation for loss of dependency as they are major and earning and also because the family of the deceased was entitled to receive financial assistance under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 in short, the 2006 Rules .
The appellant disputed the claim and pleaded that the accident did number occur with the offending vehicle the dumper tipper or due to fault of its driver, and that the respondent Nos.
1341 of 2016 OM filed by the appellant and F.A.O. No.
Having decided the above issues in favour of the respondent Nos.
Her date of birth was 1.4.1967 and date due for retirement was 31.3.2027, for which multiplier of 13 was applied.
1 and 2 herein, who are the major sons of Smt.
Thus, the loss of dependency was determined at Rs.
1 and 2, the Tribunal while determining the quantum of companypensation took numbere of the gross monthly salary of the deceased as on September, 2014, which according to her service record was Rs.23,123/ and the net take home salary was Rs.16,918/. The Tribunal did number companysider the family pension for companyputation, as the deceased was getting it in her own right as widow and the same companyld number be reckoned.
Further, the vehicle in question was being plied in companytravention of terms and companyditions of the insurance policy and the driver was number holding a valid and effective driving licence.
The Tribunal also numbered that though the respondent Nos.
The respondent Nos.
The respondent Nos.
1 and 2 were major and earning hands, the fact that they were legal heirs of the deceased and have been deprived of the pecuniary benefits through the deceased cannot be denied.
4023 of 2016 OM filed by the respondent Nos.
HR56A3260 companying from the opposite direction, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, companylided with the motorcycle, resulting in fatal injuries sustained to the deceased to which she succumbed.
The High Court by companysidering the monthly salary for companyputing companypensation as Rs.23,123/, benefits of future prospects at 30, applying a multiplier of 13 and deduction for personal expenses at 50 held that the respondent Nos.
HR32G8749.
The latter appeal has been preferred by the respondent Nos.
The parties are referred to as per their status in the former appeal for the sake of companyvenience.
1 and 2.
These civil appeals emanate from the companymon judgment and order dated 8.8.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date 2020.01.13 161623 IST Haryana at Chandigarh for short, the High Court in cross appeals Reason being F.A.O. Nos.
M. Khanwilkar, J. Delay companydoned.
The companypensation under companyventional heads was also increased from Rs.25,000/ to Rs.30,000/. Therefore, the total companypensation payable was determined as Rs.29,20,672/. The High Court further numbered that financial assistance available to the family of the deceased, under the 2006 Rules would be Rs.33,29,712/ and deducted 50 of the said amount from companypensation whilst relying upon a judgment of the same High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajmero and others1.
Leave granted.
1 and 2.
Against the award passed by the Tribunal, cross appeals were preferred being F.A.O. No.
1341 of 2016 OM and 4023 of 2016 OM , questioning the companyrectness of the award dated 4.12.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind for short, the Tribunal in A.C.T. Case No.
1 and 2 were major and earning hands.
The claim petition was filed by the respondent Nos.
The deceased was on her way to attend the office of Tehsildar, Uchana where she was working as a Peon from Dharoli Khera village on 20.10.2014 at about 9.00 a.m., travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing No.
1 and 2 were majors and number dependant upon the deceased and as such number entitled for any companypensation.
The driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle were held jointly and severally liable.
After analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident of the deceased occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
At that time, a dumper tipper bearing registration No.
17,15,532/. In addition, an amount of Rs.25,000/ was awarded on account of funeral expenses, etc.
1 and 2 claimed an amount of Rs.50,00,000/ Rupees fifty lakhs only along with interest at the rate of 12 per annum on the assertion that the deceased was earning Rs.28000/ per month Rs.21000/ as salary and Rs.7000/ as family pension of her husband , she was hale and healthy and was the only bread earner of her entire family and that they were largely dependant upon her income and have also been deprived of her love and affection.
Sunheri Devi deceased .
1 and 2 were entitled to loss of dependency qua loss of income at Rs.23,44,672/. The High Court, in addition, while companysidering the loss of dependency qua loss of pension by taking monthly pension at Rs.7,000/, applying a multiplier of 13 and deduction for personal expenses at 50, held that Rs.5,46,000/ would be payable towards this head.
17683/2019 by the claimants respondent Nos.
The former appeal arising out of L.P. C No/2020 Diary No.
They further claimed that the deduction of personal expenses should be onethird 1/3rd instead of 50.
The appellant insurance companypany primarily companytended that the respondent Nos.
