Compensation awarded under Motor Vehicle Act is not a bonanza

Daya v. Arjun & Others

First Appeal from Order 3236/2007

Before High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

Appeal was allowed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth J on 17.08.2023

Background

This is an appeal arising of Award passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Karnal on 19.04.2005 in Motor Accident case filed by the Claimant Daya @Dayawati - appellant in the present case. By way of this appeal the appellant is seeking enhancement of compensation on account of the death of his husband Sarwan Kumar - the deceased.

Fact

The deceased left for Delhi on 10.01.2005 @ about 5PM from Punjab on his truck when he reached near brick kiln of village Sambli a canter being rashly and negligently driven coming on the left side dashed into the truck and deceased died on the spot.

Award/Compensation by MACT Calculation

Claimant Dayawati filed petition u/s166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the death of her husband. MACT awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,79,000/- considering age of the deceased as 49 years & 8 months, monthly income as Rs.3500/-, deducted 1/3rd on account of his personal expenses, Rs. 5000/- as spouse consortium, Rs. 10,000/- as funeral expense with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till its actual realization.

Argument of the appellant’s Counsel

1.????Tribunal has erred in determining the monthly salary of the deceased.

2.????failed to enhance the income on account of future prospects.

3.????Tribunal has deducted personal expenses on the higher side and failed to grant any compensation on account of loss of estate.

Argument of the Insurance Company’s Counsel

1.????Tribunal has rightly determined the monthly salary of the deceased as per prevailing wages of labourers at the time of accident.

Observation of the Court

1.????Income of the deceased should have been assessed in accordance with the DC rates prevalent at the time of the accident which were Rs. 5,812.75/- per month as on date of accident i.e. 10.01.2005.

2.????In the present matter sole claimant is a widow facing the brunt of unfortunate demise of her husband, the widow has been thrusted into a position of considerable responsibility.

3.????As now she not only as to ensure her own well-being but also has to shoulder the care and support of her family.

4.????This transition would have brought about an array of challenging responsibilities to her, signifying a profound and demanding phase of adaptation and resilience.

5.????If a deduction of ? (half) is made to the income of the deceased, it will bring profound challenges in the life of the widow and will cause extreme hardship to her.

6.????This Court is of the view that deduction for personal expenses in the present case should be 1/3rd of the income of the deceased and sole claimant – widow should be entitled to the remaining 2/3rd of the income of the deceased.

Decision

Keeping in view the aim of this beneficial legislation of providing relief to the victims or their families, the total compensation payable to the appellant (petitioner/claimant) is Rs.8,44,508/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of payment of compensation to the appellants (petitioner/claimant).

Seema Bhatnagar

?

?