AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kuldip Singh, J.
CM-5511-CII-2015
For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 21 days in filing the present appeal is condoned subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
FAO-1825-2015
In this case, Harbhajan Singh, Mechanic aged about 32 years died in a motor vehicular accident. Before his death, he remained admitted in the hospital for several days. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala (in short ''the Tribunal'') had awarded compensation of Rs. 14,11,000/- (Rupees fourteen lacs eleven thousands only) to the claimants, who happen to be mother, three minor children and widow of the deceased. 9% per annum interest was also awarded in case the compensation amount is not paid within three months.
Dissatisfied with the impugned Award, the Insurance Company has come up in the present appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also carefully gone through the case file.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company-appellant has contended that the income of the deceased was assessed on the higher side and deduction of 1/3rd should have been made.
I am of the view that the deceased was a Mechanic of two wheelers and can easily earn Rs. 9,000/- per month and there is no error in the same. Since there are four dependents, therefore, the deduction of 1/4th was also correctly made.
It being so, there are no merits in the present appeal.
Before parting this order, it comes out that the widow of the deceased, namely, Charanjit Kaur-respondent No. 7 (herein) was pregnant at the time of death of her husband and after his death, she left her matrimonial home. Probably on this account, she was awarded only 5% share out of the total awarded amount.
I am of the view that when the husband of Charanjit Kaur had died and widow did not decide to abort the child rather decided to give birth to him and did not try to run away from her social obligations. So, merely on account of leaving the matrimonial house after the death of her husband, cannot be made a ground to grant her lesser share. Therefore, it is directed that the widow of the deceased, namely, Charanjit Kaur will be entitled to equal share out of 80% share awarded to three minor children (25% each) and widow (5%) of the deceased.
With the aforesaid modification, the present appeal is dismissed.