Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 889 (RAJ)

Dharmendra Sharma v. Kishan Singh

2001-05-16

B.J.SHETHNA, P.C.TATIA

body2001
Honble SHETHNA, J.–On 21.11.93 Dharmendra Sharma, Jitendra Sharma, Ruchi Sharma, Vinay Rai, Smt. Prinaka Rai, Himanshu and Mithulal were proceeding in Maruti Van No. RJ 19-T-0680 from Ajmer to Jodhpur. When they reached near Sendra Bus No. RJP 2214 coming form the opposite direction dashed with the Maruti Van in a rash and negligent manner. Vinay Rai, Jitendra Sharma and Ruchi Sharma died at the spot, Dharmendra Sharma and Mithulal were injured. FIR was lodged against the driver of the bus for the offences punishable u/Sec. 279, 337 and 304A IPC. For claim petitions No. 86/94, 78/94, 87/94 and 60/94 were filed before the tribunal by different claimants. (2). Claim petition No. 86/94 was filed by claimants Dharmendra Sharma and his wife Munni Rani on account of death of their son Jitendra Sharma who was only 21 years old. They claimed in all Rs. 20,51,000/- on the ground that their son Jitendra Sharma was only 21 years at the time of the accident. In 1993 he passed B.Com. with a merit certificate from Ministry of Human Resources and Development (Department of Education), Govt. of India and also appeared in Entrance Examination of Chartered Accountants of India. He excelled in various extra curricular activities also. Immediately after passing his B.Com. examination he was working with M/s. Suncity Tours & Travels and getting salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month. He applied for overseas job in Saudi Arabia and already got the appointment in M/s. Khair Perfumery at Jeddah in Saudi Arabia with monthly salary of Rs. 1,600/- Saudi Arabia with monthly salary of Rs. 16,00/- Saudi Riyals, which is equivalent to Rs. 16,000/- of Indian currency. The appointment letter Ex.28-A was also produced on record. Unfortunately, before he joined he died in the accident. The claimants being his parents have, therefore, filed claim petition No. 86/94 and claimed Rs. 20,51,000/-. (3). However, the learned Tribunal after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record including the appointment letter of deceased Jitendra Sharma from Saudi Arabia Co. computed the dependency amount at Rs. 7,20,800/- but in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corp. vs. Susamma Thomas (1), has awarded only Rs. 3,20,000/- as a dependency value. In addition to it the trial allowed Rs. computed the dependency amount at Rs. 7,20,800/- but in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corp. vs. Susamma Thomas (1), has awarded only Rs. 3,20,000/- as a dependency value. In addition to it the trial allowed Rs. 1000/- for transportation purposes for removing the dead body and taxi and also paid Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and Rs. 25,000/- as funeral expenses. Thus in all, the tribunal awarded Rs. 3,96,000/- to the claimants against the claim of Rs. 20,51,000/-. (4). Respondents Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation challenged that award before this court by way of filling S.B.C. Misc. Appeal No. 312/96. The said appeal alongwith three other appeals were disposed of by common judgment and order dated 5.05.1998 whereby the learned Single Judge substantially reduced the amount from Rs. 3,96,000/-, which was awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 2,24,000/-. The original claimant-present appellants aggrieved by that order have filed this special appeal. (5). Mr. Choudhary learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that in the instant case the learned Single Judge while relying upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Susamma Thomass case, slashed down the dependency value and fixed the estimated income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per months only. Out of annual income, i.e. Rs. 36,000/-, Rs. 3,000/- was computed towards personal expenses of deceased. Therefore, Rs. 2,000/- per months was fixed, i.e. Rs. 24,000/- per year and considering the multiplier of 9 only, the learned Single Judge calculated the compensation at Rs. 2,16,000/-. However, the learned counsel Mr. Gupta for the respondents supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the finding recorded by him reducing the compensation amount to Rs. 2,16,000/- by applying multiplier of 9 is correct. (6). It is true that in the case of Susamma Thomas (supra) the Honble Supreme Court observed that ``the claim made for loss of future earnings of Rs. 50,000/- on the prospects of future employment in USA was rightly negatived by the Tribunal (Emphasis supplied). However, there is a difference between the prospects and actual events. In the instant case the deceased Jitendra Sharma actually got the appointment order in Saudi Arabia and his monthly income would be Rs. 16,000/- per months as per Indian currency. 50,000/- on the prospects of future employment in USA was rightly negatived by the Tribunal (Emphasis supplied). However, there is a difference between the prospects and actual events. In the instant case the deceased Jitendra Sharma actually got the appointment order in Saudi Arabia and his monthly income would be Rs. 16,000/- per months as per Indian currency. In that view of the matter, if the learned Tribunal calculated the dependency value of Rs. 7,20,800/-, then no fault can be found with the order. However, the learned Tribunal was conscious about the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Susamma Thomass case, itself therefore, instead of awarding Rs. 7,20,800/- it has awarded only Rs. 3,20,000/- by applying multiplier of 12. Thus it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal was anyway wrong in awarding the same amount by applying multiplier of 12. The learned Single Judge has applied multiplier of 9 whereas in the instant case father was of the age of 50 and mother was 48. Considering the recent judgments of the Honble Supreme Court and that the age of the human being is increased substantially with the advance technology, therefore, it cannot be said that in the instant case the Tribunal had committed error in applying multiplier of 12. Without considering all these aspects, the learned Single Judge has reduced the multiplier from 12 to 9. (7). The learned Single Judge has maintained the award of Rs. 1,000/- for transportation charges awarded by the tribunal but without any reason reduced the funeral expenses from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- and awarded Rs. 5,000/- only for the loss of love and affection instead of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the tribunal. Thus instead of total amount of Rs. 3,96,000/- awarded by the tribunal, the learned Single Judge awarded only in all Rs. 2,24,000/- with interest @ 12%. However, the learned Single Judge has highly reduced the interest from 15% awarded by the tribunal to 12%. However, regarding the substantial reduction in the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal we are not in agreement with the view taken by him. (8). In view of the above discussion, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge party allowing the Misc. However, regarding the substantial reduction in the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal we are not in agreement with the view taken by him. (8). In view of the above discussion, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge party allowing the Misc. Appeal No. 312/96 filed by the respondent-claimant in claim petition No. 86/1994 is hereby quashed and set aside and the judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal is restored with the clarification that the claimants would be entitled for Rs. 3,96,000/- as awarded by the tribunal but with interest @ 12% from the date of institution of the claim petition till its realization.