Tejesvita Chandel And Another vs Vinod Kumari Chandel And Others

Sureshwar Thakur, J

Through the instant appeal, the appellants cast a challenge, vis-Ã -vis, the award made by the MACT concerned, upon claim petition No. 14-NL/2

of 1998/07, decided on 29.8.2008, where through compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs. 11,50,000/- became awarded, to, one Vinod Kumari

Chandel, and to Tejasvita chandel, co-appellant No. 1, in the extant appeal, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum, and, commencing, from the date of

filing, of, petition, uptill final realizations, thereof, the amount. Moreover, costs, amounting, to, Rs. 10,000/- also became therethrough hence quantified,

by, the learned Tribunal, and, also through the impugned award, the afore determined compensation amount, was directed, to became equally

apportioned, amongst oneVinod Kumari Chandel, and, one Tejasvita, and, also a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, became awarded, as loss, of, consortium, to, one

Vinod Kumari chandel. Since appellant No. 2, one Abhilasha Chandel, was, denied the relief, of, compensation, hence, in, the impugned award, and,

hence both, the, appellants challenge, the, operative order, hence equally apportioning the apposite amount, of, compensation, amongst, Vinod Kumari,

and, vis-à -vis, Ms.Tejasvita Chandel, rather through theirs’ constituting thereagainst, the, extant appeal, before this Court , (a) wherethrough they

strive, to, beget reversing, of, the afore made apposite apportionment, vis-Ã -vis, one Vinod Kumari Chandel, contrarily they strive, for, the

compensation amount, being ordered, to, become equally apportioned, only amongst them.

Co-appellant Tejasvita Chandel, is, un-controvertedly born out, of, the wedlock, entered into, interse one Abhilasha Chandel, with deceased Ram

Pratap chandel. Even though, a perusal, of, Ext. Px-5, exhibit whereof, is, a verdict rendered, upon, petition No. 9/2 of 1997, petition whereof became

instituted, under Section 6, of, the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, (a) rather unveils, vis-Ã -vis, therein a declaration becoming meted, vis-

à -vis, one Abhilasha Chandel, not solemnizing any legal, and, valid marriage, with deceased Ram Pratap Chandel, (b) and, also unfolds qua one Vinod

Kumari arrayed, as respondent therein, becoming, rather declared to be, the, legally married spouse, of, the afore deceased Ram Pratap Chandel.

However, the petitioner therein, one Abhilasha Chandel, became therein declared to, become entitled to the custody, of, minor Tejasvita Chandel, who,

as aforestated, was born, from, the loins, of, one Ram Pratap Chandel, and, from the womb, of, Abhilasha Chandel.

Dehors the afore relief, becoming pronounced upon, the, afore petition, the further factum, of, one Vinod Kumari Chandel, at the relevant

time,inasmuch, as, hers’ in contemporaneity, vis-à -vis, the institution, of, the afore petition, hence living, with the afore deceased, Ram Pratap

Chandel, rather also makes visible upsurging(s), from averments, becoming borne in paragraphs 4 and 5, of, the afore apposite petition, (a) wherein,

one Abhilasha Chandel, makes acquiescing averments, qua, the, afore deceased, rather, concealing from her, his prior marriage, with one Vinod

Kumari Chandel, hence in contemporaneity, vis-Ã -vis, his entering into a wedlock with her, (b) and also from her acquiescing averments, made in

paragraph-6, of, the apposite petition, wherein she acquiesces, vis-Ã -vis, the afore deceased Ram Pratap Chandel, retrieving, and, forcibly snatching,

the, custody, of, minor Tejasvita Chandel, from the petitioner, and, thereafter his handing over the custody, of, the afore minor child, to, the respondent

No. 2, one Vinod Kumari Chandel. Significantly, from, the afore, it also becomes evident qua both Vinod Kumari Chandel, and, one Ram Pratap

Chandel, rather cohabiting together, and further, therethroughs, it, also becomes evident, qua there occurring acrimony, and, bitterness, in the marital

ties, interse one Abhilasha Chandel and deceased Ram Pratap Chandel, and, also both rather not cohabiting together. However, even if, one Abhilasha

chandel, assumingly, did not, cohabit, with deceased, Ram Pratap Chandel, and, rather he merely cohabit, only with one Vinod Kumari Chandel, yet

dehors, there occurring no valid marriage interse Ram Pratap Chandel, and, one Abhilasha Chandel, (c) yet given a child becoming born, from their

wedlock, obviously, the afore born child, is, a sequel, of, both cohabiting together, yet prior, to, the institution, of, the afore alluded petition, (d) hence,

unless evidence surges forth, vis-Ã -vis, Abhilasha Chandel, not, being financially empowered, and, hence not being dependant, upon the income, of,

the afore deceased Ram Pratap Chandel, she may not, become completely ousted, from claiming apposite dependence(s), significantly upon, the

demise, of, the afore Ram Pratap Chandel, vis-Ã -vis, his income, nor would she become completely dis-entitled, to seek, qua, the, determined

compensation amount, becoming ordered, to, become, apportioned, vis-Ã -vis, her also. However, a, reading, of, the testimony, of, Abhilasha Chandel,

underscores the trite factum, vis-Ã -vis, hers being employed, and, also hers therefrom rather drawing a per mensem salary, (e) thereupon when she

was financially empowered, to, fend for herself, hence she cannot be, concluded, to be dependant, upon, the income, as, derived, by, the afore

deceased, one Ram Pratap Chandel, (f) nor hence she become entitled, to, any compensation, becoming determined, or becoming apportioned, vis-Ã -

vis, her.

Be that as it may, the surviving controversy, hence warranting its becoming resisted, is, whether Vinod Kumari Chandel, who became evidently

declared, to be, the legally wedded wife, of, deceased Ram Pratap Chandel, rather becoming entitled, to, seek, a verdict qua, the, determined

compensation, becoming apportioned, vis-Ã -vis, her, alongwith one Tejesvita Chandel. The mere factum, of, deceased Ram Pratap Chandel, evidently

holding, any lawful wedlock, with one Vinod Kumari Chandel, would not suffice, unless cogent evidence surges forth, hence, suggestive, vis-Ã -vis,

hers, during the life-time, of, deceased Ram Pratap Chandel, hence, cohabiting with him, (a) and also, upon evidence surging forth, hence making

candid bespeaking(s), vis-Ã -vis, hers not being financially empowered, (b) rather hers being dependent upon, the income, of, her deceased husband.

As afore-stated, the afore acquiescing averments, made by Abhilasha Chandel, in petition No. 9/2 of 1997, does, enable, the, garnering, of, an

inference, vis-Ã -vis, at the relevant time, the afore Vinod Kumari Chandel, rather cohabiting, with her deceased husband, one Ram Pratap chandel,

(c) and hence, she also becomes construable, to, become dependant, upon her deceased husbands’ income, (d) moreso when, no evidence surges

forth, hence, suggestive, vis-Ã -vis, hers becoming resourcefully employed. In aftermath, she alongwith Tejasvita Chandel, as aptly done, by the

learned MACT concerned, became entitled, to, in equal shares, vis-Ã -vis, the determined compensation. Consequently, the afore portion, of, the

award, is, maintained, and, affirmed.

The learned counsel, for the aggrieved appellants also submits that since deceased Ram Pratap Chandel, in contemporaneity, vis-Ã -vis, his

suffering his demise, in the apposite motor vehicle accident, was, as unfolded by Ext. RW5/A, exhibit whereof, became, tendered into evidence, by

one Abhilasha Chandel, hence, drawing a salary, of, Rs. 60,000/- per mensem, (a) and also when no cogent evidence, in rebuttal, thereto, beame

adduced, hence by the respondents, (b)thereupon, it, became rather insagacious, for, the learned Tribunal, to, conclude, vis-Ã -vis, the, per - mensem

salary, of, the, deceased, at the relevant time, becoming reckoneable, in a sum, of, Rs. 10,000.-. The afore made contention, has some vigor, and,

requires, to be partly accepted, as, unless, the bespeaking(s), made on oath, by one Vinod Kumari Chandel, and, also, as, made by Abhilasha Chandel,

through the latters’ hence, tendering into evidence, Ext. RW5/A, before the learned Tribunal, became belied by adduction, of, reliable, trustworthy

and cogent evidence, (c) thereupon, it was unwise, hence for the learned Tribunal, to, completely belie, the afore made testifications, merely, through

its assigning, the reason(s), qua no evidence, in consonance therewith, becoming rather adduced, by afore Vinod Kumari Chandel, and, by Abhilasha

Chandel. Even though, the afore insistence, made by the learned Tribunal, hence in the impugned award, appears to be insagacious, rather it would

also not be appropriate, for this Court, to, also rather mete, the, completest credence, to the afore recorded testifiation(s), (d) hence, upon taking, a,

reasonable view, it appears, that, at the relevant time, the afore deceased Ram Pratap Chandel, was, earning Rs. 30,000/- per mensem(s), yet, without

adding, the, requisite percentem, of, hikes towards future prospects, as all the afore, are, speculative gains (e) and since, in contemporaneity, vis-Ã -

vis, his suffering his demise, in the apposite motor vehicle collision, he was aged about 48 years, (f) thereupon, the apposite multiplier, of, 13 was

enjoined to be applied thereon. Moreover, since, deceased Ram Pratap Chandel, was, admittedly, at, the relevant time, drawing an amount of Rs.

5,000/- as pension, from his being, a, former member, of, the H.P. Legislative Assembly, hence, the afore amount, of, per-mensem pension, would

rather necessarily beget escalations or hikes, and, hence the apposite percentum(s), of, additions, or hikes, towards future prospects, qua the afore per

mensem income of Rs. 5000/-, also became enjoined, to, become meted thereon, rather within the domain, of, Pranay Sethi’s case, Since, the,

afore deceased was aged about 48 years, his per mensem income, is, enjoined to become enhanced, vis-Ã -vis, by adding 25% thereon. In this case,

since the deceased was having 3 dependants, hence, 1/3rd , of, the afore income is to be deducted, towards, his personal expenses. After deducting,

the, afore requisite one third income, his contribution towards the family, is, reckonable, in a sum, of, Rs. 10,416/-. As the deceased was 48 years old,

in contemporaniety, vis-Ã -vis, his suffering his demise, the apposite multiplier of 13, becomes, applicable thereon. After applying the multiplier, of, 13,

the loss, of, dependency, is, assessed, in a sum of Rs. 18,85,000/- [Rs. 30,000+ 5000+ 1250 (25% of Rs. 5000) = Rs. 36,250/-1/3= Rs. 12,083/-

x12x13).

The learned counsel appearing, for, the Insurer, contends, that, the computation(s) of, compensation amount, in a sum of Rs.50,000/-, under, the

conventional head, “Loss of consortium, and, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- ,under, the conventional head, “funeral expensesâ€, and, further

assessments, in a sum of, Rs. 50,000/- qua the claimants, under the conventional head, “loss of love and affection,†being beyond, the, ambit of the

verdict rendered, by Hon’ble Apex Court, in case titled, as, National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 (4) ACJ

2700. His contention is weighty, and, is accepted. The quantification, of monetary damages, by the learned Tribunal, in, a sum of Rs. 50,00-/- vis-a-vis,

the widow of deceased, (i) under the head, loss of consortium, (ii) and also quantification, of compensation vis-a-vis the claimants, under, the head, loss

of love and affection, besides the afore quantification, of, funeral expenses, are,(a) in, conflict with the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as

rendered in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), (b) wherein, it has been expostulated, that reasonable figures, under conventional heads, namely, loss to

estate, loss of expectation of life, and, funeral expenses, being quantified, only upto, Rs.15,000/-, (only to widow) Rs.40,000/-, and, Rs.15,000/-

respectively, (iii) and, with no expostulation occurring therein vis-a-vis only compensation amount(s), being awardable, to the offspring(s) of the

deceased, especially under the head, loss of love and affection, hence reliefs in respect thereto, being impermissibly granted. Consequently, the award

of the learned tribunal is interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads, vis-Ã -vis the claimants.

Accordingly, in addition to a sum of Rs. 18,85,000/-, as becomes awarded, to, the claimants, by this Court, they are, also entitled to, under conventional

heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, (only to widow) and, funeral expenses, sums of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively,

as such, the total compensation whereto which, the, petitioners are entitled comes to Rs. 18,85,000/-+ 15,000/- + Rs. 40,000 +15,000/-= Rs. 19,55,000 -

(Rs.Nineteen lacs, fifty five thousand only).

Consequently, the instant appeal is disposed of accordingly, and, the award is also modified accordingly, to the extent above, and, Tejesvita

channdel, and, Vinod Kumari Chandel, are, in, equal proportion, hence entitled, to, the afore determined compensation money(s). Also, the pending

application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Records be sent down forthwith.