M.M. Sundresh JUDGMENT
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 854 of 2014, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal to enhance the amount of compensation.
2. That the wife of the Appellant No. 1 died in a vehicular accident. At the relevant time, the deceased was aged 25 years and was a housewife. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awarded Rs. 19,12,200/- with the interest at the rate of 7.5% towards the compensation under different heads. The Learned Tribunal awarded the loss of dependency at Rs. 3,24,000/- considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- per month. As at the relevant time the deceased was pregnant, the learned Tribunal also awarded Rs. 50,000/- for foetus. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 19,12,200/- under different heads:
2.1. In an appeal at the instance of the original claimants, by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has enhanced the amount of compensation at Rs. 29,34,000/- under different heads:
2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants-original claimants has vehemently submitted that the High Court has committed a serious error in awarding the loss of dependency considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month only. It is submitted that even the minimum wages payable to the skilled worker was much more than Rs. 6,000/- per month. It is submitted that even otherwise while awarding the loss of dependency, future prospect has not been taken into consideration at all.
3.1. It is submitted that the High Court has also erred in awarding Rs. 50,000/- towards foetus. It is submitted that the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of consortium or loss of love and affection. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. Shri Vishnu Mehra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting Respondents-Insurance Company has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the deceased was only a housewife, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in awarding the loss of dependency considering the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month. However, has fairly conceded that the High Court ought to have awarded the loss of dependency considering future prospects.
5. Having heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the fact that at the relevant time the deceased was a housewife aged 25 years only and there was contribution of the wife in the family and there is evidence that she was also doing the tuition work, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have considered the income of the deceased at least Rs. 7,500/- per month. The High Court has also not considered the future prospects. As per the settled position of law while considering the loss of dependency 40% of the income is required to be added towards future prospects.
5.1. We are of the opinion that the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each instead of Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the High Court fo........