The offending vehicle, being an oil tanker bearing registration No.
The cause of action being the same, these two claim petitions were companysolidated, and were tried and decided together by way of the companymon award dated 27.01.2000.
1136 of 2000 O M and companynected matters, whereby the Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date 2019.04.23 175328 IST Reason High Court of Punjab and Haryana has allowed the appeal for enhancement of companypensation filed by the claimants and has modified the companymon award dated 27.01.2000 as made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh in MACT Case Nos.
In the impugned judgment and order dated 06.07.2018, the High Court has made upward revision of the amount of companypensation awarded by the Tribunal and, in place of the amount of Rs.
The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in this accident while his wife was also injured and their two children suffered severe shock.
On the other hand, insurer of the offending vehicle denied the factum of the accident and also alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle did number possess a valid driving license.
80 of 1996 and another on 22.05.1996 by the wife and minor children of the deceased, being MACT Case No.
On the pleadings, the Tribunal framed as many as 9 issues.
On account of demise of the victim Shri Rajpal Singh Johal due to the injuries sustained in the accident aforesaid, two claim applications came to be made before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh one on 14.05.1996 by the parents of deceased, being MACT Case No.
Against the award so made by the Tribunal, the claimants in MACT Case No.
Therefore, the Tribunal companysidered it just and reasonable to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.
It was asserted that the deceased was 38 years of age was working as General Manager Marketing with Punjab Wireless System Limited, Mohali was drawing gross annual salary of Rs.
80 of 1996 and 84 of 1996 that were filed respectively by the parents and by the wife and children of the deceased Shri Rajpal Singh Johal.
3,21,801.60 with perks just prior to the accident and he was due to be promoted as the Associate Vice President in January 1996 whereby, his annual salary would have been enhanced to Rs.
The High Court, in its impugned judgment dated 06.07.2018, in the first place rejected the companytentions urged on behalf of the insurer as regards the factum and cause of accident and affirmed the findings of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal also held that the wife and children of the deceased were dependent on him and further that the parents were marginally dependent on him.
Delay companydoned in the petition filed on behalf of the claimants.
AS 01 9526, rammed into the car driven by the deceased while companying from the opposite direction.
37,71,000/ together with interest 12 p.a.
84 of 1996.
The High Court did number accept the basis of assessment of loss of income with reference to the likely enhanced emoluments of deceased on his expected promotion and subsequent revision of pay scale in the year 1996.
In this manner, the High Court arrived at the multiplicand of Rs.
The High Court, therefore, took the base annual emoluments at Rs.
37,71,000/ to the claimants.
On the question of quantification of companypensation, the Tribunal took numbere of the evidence led by the claimants as regards emoluments of the deceased as on 01.12.1995 the fact that his companyleagues were promoted as Associate Vice President in the year 1995 that he too had the prospects of such promotion and that emoluments of the Associate Vice President were revised with effect from the month of December 1996.
The Tribunal decided the basic issues relating to the factum of accident and the responsibility for the same against the number applicants while holding that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending oil tanker.
48,00,000/ together with interest 7.5 p.a.
As regards quantum of companypensation, the High Court proceeded to make enhancement over the amount awarded by the Tribunal with reference to the decisions in Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma supra .
Before the Tribunal, driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte while its owner denied any negligence on part of the driver and rather alleged that the accident occured due to rash and negligent driving by the deceased.
3,50,000/ .
2,34,000/ and, after applying the multiplier of 16, assessed the pecuniary loss of the claimants at Rs.
The sum and substance of the allegations in claim applications had been that the deceased met with his untimely end for the accident in question that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the oil tanker in question.
25,000/ towards transportation of dead body and Rs.
2,000/ towards other expenses and thus, finally awarded a sum of Rs.
48,00,000/ .
from the date of filing of claim application No.
3,21,801.60 and, while deducting Rs.
84 of 1996 preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, seeking enhancement of the amount of companypensation, while the insurance companypany preferred two separate appeals questioning the findings in the award and seeking reduction of the amount of companypensation.
After taking evidence, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the relevant issues in its impugned award dated 27.01.2000.
20,000/ towards income tax, rounded off the figure to Rs.
Leave granted in the both the petitions.
1,00,000/ each to the mother and father of the deceased while observing that they were in the age group of 78 years and were only marginally dependent on the deceased and apportioned the remaining amount amongst the wife and children of the deceased.
These cross appeals relating to the vehicular accident companypensation claims, respectively by the insurer of the offending vehicle and by the claimants, are directed against the companymon judgment and order dated 06.07.2018, as Signature Not Verified passed in FAO No.
3,15,000/ and, while applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the age of the deceased at 38 years, worked out the pecuniary loss at Rs.
3,00,000/ .
15,000/ towards loss to estate.
The Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs.
80 of 1996.
Then, the Tribunal proceeded to deduct one third towards personal expenses of the deceased and in this manner, took the annual loss of dependency at Rs.
as per the revised emoluments for the post of Associate Vice President in the employer companypany.
as awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court has awarded a sum of Rs.
3,51,000/ p.a.,
The vehicular accident in question occurred on 30.12.1995, at about 1 p.m., near the police out post Bagari Assam , when the deceased Shri Rajpal Singh Johal was driving a car, taking his wife and children along, from Kaziranga to Guwahati.
The background aspects of the matter, so far relevant for the question at hand, may be numbericed, in brief, as follows 5.1.
The Tribunal also allowed interest at the rate of 12 p.a.
Accordingly, the High Court assessed the total companypensation at Rs, 47,95,000/ and rounded it up to Rs.
37,44,000/ .
While asserting their dependency on the deceased, the claimants i.e., the parents, wife and children of the deceased claimed companypensation against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
The Tribunal further awarded Rs.
The High Court, thereafter, provided for enhancement of 40 towards future prospects and then, looking to five number of dependents, deducted one fourth towards personal expenses of the deceased.
However, thereafter, the Tribunal did number provide for any further future prospects.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. The application for substitution of legal representatives in the petition filed on behalf of the claimants is allowed the named legal representative shall stand substituted in the both the petitions.
