Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 329 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. Jaipur v. Soni Devi

2001-02-23

B.J.SHETHNA, H.R.PANWAR

body2001
Honble PANWAR, J.–This appeal is filed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter (for short ``The Corporation) against the judgment and order dated 11th March passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 196/89, whereby the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant claimants therein and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 2,48,000/-. (2). The claim petition was filed by Smt. Soni Devi widow of deceased Hasti Mal and her 3 daughters and 3 sons, who died at the age of 49 years on 10.1.83 while he was travelling in a bus No. RRM 870 owned by the Corporation, which collieded with a running rail/train due to rash and negligent driving by its Driver, Jaisingh. Due to this accident, occupant of the bus sustained severe injuries and as many as 9 persons succumbed to injuries instataneously including Hastimal. (3). The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra, (for short the Tribunal) after holding the trial held that the aforesaid accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the aforesaid bus owned by the Corporation and awarded Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the original claimants vide award dated 29th May 1989. (4). Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the original claimants filed the appeal before the learned Single Judge of this Court for enhancement of the award. The learned Single Judge vide judgment impugned dated 11th March 1996 allowed the appeal filed by the original claimants and enhanced the compensation. As against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the Corporation filed this appeal assailing the quantum of compensation awarded. (5). It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation that the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge is too excessive. (6). The respondent claimant Smt. Soni Devi and her 3 sons and 3 daughters i.e. Respondent No.2 to 7, who are legal representative and dependants of deceased Hastimal, filed the claim petition for claiming compensation of Rs. 4,62,500/- before the Tribunal. (7). The learned Single Judge after taking into account entire record and after evaluating the evidence on record, determined the annual dependency of Rs. 23556/- per annum which was further multiplied by purchase factor of 8 years purchase. 4,62,500/- before the Tribunal. (7). The learned Single Judge after taking into account entire record and after evaluating the evidence on record, determined the annual dependency of Rs. 23556/- per annum which was further multiplied by purchase factor of 8 years purchase. The respondent claimants proved their case before the Tribunal by examining P.W. 2 Pukh Raj, P.W. 3 Sankal Chand, as also filed Income Tax Assessment showing income tax return for the year 1984-85. The case of the claimants as put up is that at the relevant time the age of Hastimal was 49 years and he was having good health. He was running Plastic Factory at Baroda and was a partner of the said firm having 50 per cent shares. The income of firm was assessed to Rs. 35,340/-. The learned Single Judge while determining the income of deceased as also dependency of the respondent claimants taken Rs. 23560/- per month as dependency on relying upon the uncontroverted evidence of respondent claimants. The learned Single Judge has also taken in to account the future prospects of advancement in life and carrier which was sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. In view of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in General Manager Kerla Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas (1). The annual dependency determined, was further multiplied by purchase factor of 8 years and, thus, the dependency was assessed to Rs. 1,88,448/-. (8). Learned Single Judge further added Rs. 2,000/- for the treatment expenses of the deceased, as awarded by the Tribunal. (9). Learned Single Judge further awarded the compensation under the head of loss of consortium love and affection, mental agony and physical pain etc of Rs.10,000/, and, as such in all a sum of Rs. 2,48,000/- was awarded by the learned Single Judge. (10). Learned counsel Mr. B.S. Bhati, for the appellant, vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge committed error in determining the higher income of deceased as also the multiplier of 8 applied by the learned Single Judge is on higher side. (11). We are unable to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. The learned Single Judge determined the dependency in view if the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court, in Susamma Thomass case (supra). (11). We are unable to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. The learned Single Judge determined the dependency in view if the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court, in Susamma Thomass case (supra). In catena of judgments, the Honble Supreme Court has held that while determining the dependency, the future prospects should be taken in to account to augment the muliplicand, and, therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly determined the annual dependency of the respondent claimants. (12). More so the income which deceased used to make at the time of accident would not have frozen for all time to come and it would have reasonably been enhanced, therefore, taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was not in error in determining the dependency of the respondent claimants. Thus, the dependency determined by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and cannot be said to be too excessive. (13). Now the question comes to what should be appropriate multiplier in the instant case. Undisputedly the age of the deceased was 49 years at the time of accident. In U.P. State Road Transport Corp. vs. Trilok Chand (2), it has been held that multiplier cannot exceed 18 years purchase factor. This was the improvement over the earlier decision rendered by Honble Supreme Court in Susamma Thomass case (supra) that ordinarily it should not exceed to 16. In view of the fact that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was amended by the Amendment Act No. 54 of 1994 and most important change introduced by the amendment in so far as it relates to determination of compensation, is by insertion of Sec. 163-A & 163-B in Chapter-XI. According to Second Schedule to section 163-A, the multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to which victim belong. In the instant case, the viction was of 49 years of age, and, according to second schedule, the proper multiplier is 13 years purchase factor. (14). According to Second Schedule to section 163-A, the multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to which victim belong. In the instant case, the viction was of 49 years of age, and, according to second schedule, the proper multiplier is 13 years purchase factor. (14). In a recent judgment, Honble Supreme Court applied the multiplier of 15 in the case of death of a person of 50 years of age Jyoti Kaul vs. State of M.P., (3), and, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the multiplier of 8 applied by the learned Single Judge cannot be said by any stretch of imagination to be on higher side or too excessive. If, the dependency as determined is multiplied by appropriate multiplier, then amount would be much more than awarded. (15). Learned Single Judge award Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium, love and affection, mental agony and physical pain, which cannot be said to be excessive normally a conventional sum of Rs. 15,000/- each for consortium and loss of estate is awarded. Taking from any stand point of view, we are of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs. 2,48,000/- awarded by the learned Single Judge, cannot be said to be on higher side. It is settled law that in appeal, interference is made with the quantum of compensation only on the ground of inadequacy or the same being too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, in this case, the amount awarded cannot be called to excessive, and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with such award. (16). In view of the above, we find no substance in this special appeal. Accordingly, it fails and hereby dismissed. (17). Since the appeal itself has been dismissed, the stay petition stands dismissed automatically and interim order/relief if any granted on stay petition stands vacated. The appellant is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded to the respondent claimants, together with interest, ofcourse, after adjustment of amount, if any, already paid to the claimants. No order as to costs.