Poonam Rani Vs Mahinder Singh

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 9 Jan 2014 F.A.O. No. 372 of 2011 (2014) 175 PLR 652
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

F.A.O. No. 372 of 2011

Hon'ble Bench

Jitendra Chauhan, J

Advocates

Anurag Chopra, Advocate for the Appellant; Pradeep Goyal, Advocate for the Respondent

Final Decision

Dismissed

Judgement Text

Translate:

Jitendra Chauhan, J.@mdashThe present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation

awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, (''the Tribunal'', for brevity) vide award dated 02.06.2010, on account of the

death of their minor daughter, Manju Rani, in a motor vehicular accident, that took place on 30.05.2008. The learned counsel for the appellant

cites Manju Devi and Another Vs. Musafir Paswan and Another to contend that the amount of compensation of Rupees seventy five thousand,

awarded by the learned Tribunal, is highly inadequate. He further states that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation by taking

notional income of the deceased as Rupees fifteen thousand and applying the multiplier of 15. He further states that nothing has been awarded to

the claimant-parents on account of loss of company of child as also the pain suffered by them. The learned counsel, however, submits that he shall

be satisfied in case a lump sum amount of Rupees two lacs and fifty thousand, is awarded as compensation.

2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. It is not in dispute that the deceased, Manju Rani, who was aged four years, died in a motor vehicular accident. The claimants are her parents.

In Manju Devi''s case supra, Hon''ble the Apex Court awarded compensation of Rupees two lacs and twenty five thousand, with regard to the

death of a 13 years'' old boy by applying the multiplier of 15 and taking the notional income of Rupees fifteen thousand. The facts of the present

case are squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in Manju Devi''s case supra. The learned Tribunal has awarded a lump sum compensation

of Rupees seventy five thousand to the claimants.

5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the statement of the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court feels that

the ends of justice would be met in case the compensation awarded to the appellants is enhanced from Rupees seventy five thousand to Rupees

two lacs and fifty thousand. It is ordered accordingly. No other point has been raised.

6. In view of the above, the claimant-appellants are held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rupees one lac seventy thousand, as indicated

above, which shall be payable within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which, they shall also

be entitled to interest @ 6.5% per annum, from the date of filing the present appeal, till its realization. With the aforesaid modification in the

impugned award, the present appeal is partly allowed.

From The Blog
Bhim Singh, MLA vs State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others (1985)
Oct
18
2025

Landmark Judgements

Bhim Singh, MLA vs State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others (1985)
Read More
The Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. vs The State of Rajasthan and Others (1962)
Oct
18
2025

Landmark Judgements

The Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. vs The State of Rajasthan and Others (1962)
Read More