Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1068 (RAJ)

Usha v. Bhanwar Lal

2003-07-29

N.P.GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the claimants, against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur dated 4.12.1995, decreeing the appellants' claim, for a total sum of Rs.1,35,000/- and also awarding interest @ 12% from the date of claim petition, till realisation, and also directing that in case, the amount is not paid within two months, the amount will carry interest @ 15% per annum. 2. The facts of the case are that, according to the claim petition, on 14.11.1992, the deceased, Ranjeet Lal was going with Iqbal, on scooter No. RJ 127/4979 from village Kaya to Udaipur, at that time, the truck No. RPJ 1967, which was coming from Udaipur, and going to Ahmedabad, was being driven rashly and negligently, and by coming on the wrong side, hit the scooter, as a result of which, Ranjeet Lal died in the hospital, while Iqbal received simple injuries, and the scooter also got damaged. On the basis of these averments, a claim for a sum of Rs.11,87,850/- has been filed. The claimants are the widow, two minor children, mother and sister of the deceased. 3. The claim petition was contested on the side of the insurer. However, the learned Tribunal, while deciding issue No. 1, found that the accident was the result of negligent driving of the truck. While, deciding issue No. 2, I learned Tribunal found, that the income of the deceased cannot be accepted to be exceeding Rs.2000/- per month, and assessed the dependency at Rs.800/- per month, by employing a multiplier of 12, the compensation was assessed at Rs.1.15,200/-, adding Rs.20,000/- for consortium, the award of Rs.1,35,200/- was made. 4. Assailing the impugned award, the finding on issue No. 2, only has been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is contended that when the learned Tribunal has found the income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,000/-, there was no justification for assessing the dependency at to Rs.800/- per month only. It is then contended that the multiplier employed, being 12, is also grossly inadequate. 5. I have considered the submissions, and perused the record. 6. It is contended that when the learned Tribunal has found the income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,000/-, there was no justification for assessing the dependency at to Rs.800/- per month only. It is then contended that the multiplier employed, being 12, is also grossly inadequate. 5. I have considered the submissions, and perused the record. 6. In the claim petition, in para 4, it has been pleaded that, the deceased was working as a driver, at a salary of Rs.1200/- per month, and was getting allowance of Rs.20/- per day, and thus, the total income of the deceased was claimed to be Rs.1800/- per month. In this claim, the appellant, Smt. Usha appeared as AW/3, and has also deposed that, the deceased was working as a driver, his age was deposed to be years, and it was deposed that he was getting a salary of Rs.1200/- per month, so also Rs.20/- per day as allowance. Then, Ex.37 has been produced on the side of the claimants, being the salary certificate of the deceased, having been issued by the employer, certifying the salary of the deceased to be Rs.1200/- per month, and that the deceased was getting Rs.20/- per day, by way of allowance. The appellant, Smt. Usha has deposed in her statement that Ex.37 is the salary certificate, which she has obtained from the owner of the firm M/s. Heera Lal Sukh Lal, where the deceased was employed. In cross-examination, this part of the evidence has not at all been assailed, by directing any question to the appellant, Smt. Usha. 7. Thus, it is clearly established that the income of the deceased can, at 30 the most, be said to be Rs.1800/- per month. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants tried to contend that, the learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration the future prospects of he deceased. Suffice it to say, that there is absolutely no material on record, even by word of month of the claimant, in that regard. 8. Considering the income of the deceased to be even Rs.1800/-. In view of the size of the family, at least 1/4th portion is required to be deducted for personal expenditure of the deceased, and thus, the dependency of the 'amity of the claimant is assessed at Rs.1350/- per month. 8. Considering the income of the deceased to be even Rs.1800/-. In view of the size of the family, at least 1/4th portion is required to be deducted for personal expenditure of the deceased, and thus, the dependency of the 'amity of the claimant is assessed at Rs.1350/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased, and keeping in view the philosophy of the II Schedule, enacted by the Parliament, by way of structured formula, under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, I think it appropriate to employ a multiplier of 16, instead 11 12, as the learned Tribunal has found the age of the deceased to be 40 years. 9. Thus, the amount of compensation to be awarded, under the head of income, comes to Rs.2,59,200/-. Accordingly, the amount of 1,15,200/-, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, is required to be, and is increased to Rs.2,59,200/-. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified, and the amount of compensation for loss of income is enhanced from 1,15,200/- to Rs. 2,59,200/-. All other parts of the award, and Other stipulations of the award, are maintained.Appeal Allowed. *******