Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1021 (RAJ)

Kamlesh v. R. S. R. T. C.

2005-04-06

S.K.KESHOTE

body2005
Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the miscellaneous appeal. 2. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed by the claimant appellants against the award, dated 011.2000, of the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Hindaun City, in Claim Petition No. 102 (A)/1999. Under the impugned award the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/-as compensation in favour of the claimant appellants for the death of Jamna Lal in the motor vehicle accident took place on 27.06.1999. 3. The learned Counsel for the claimant appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal, as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has taken the yearly income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/-, but it has committed a serious error in deducting one-third therefrom for his personal expenses. In his submission this deduction is not permissible and he, in support of his submission, made reference to the decision of Honble the Supreme Court in Manju Devi & Another vs. Musafir Paswan & Anr., 2005 (1) TAC 609 SC. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Non-claimant respondent No. 1 RSRTC, supported the award of the learned Tribunal. 5. Having given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties I find sufficient merit and substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the claimant appellants. The claimant appellants could not produce any cogent or satisfactory evidence for the income of the deceased, but, as per the Second Schedule to the Act aforesaid, the deceased falls under the category of non-earning member of the family and his income ought to have been taken as per that Schedule and the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/-per annum but it has committed a serious error in deducting therefrom 1/3rd for his personal expenses. In Manju Devis case (Supra) their Lordship of the Honble Supreme Court did not make any such deduction. The multiplier of 18 adopted by the learned Tribunal has not been questioned or disputed. 6. In the result the appeal succeeds in part. 15,000/-per annum but it has committed a serious error in deducting therefrom 1/3rd for his personal expenses. In Manju Devis case (Supra) their Lordship of the Honble Supreme Court did not make any such deduction. The multiplier of 18 adopted by the learned Tribunal has not been questioned or disputed. 6. In the result the appeal succeeds in part. The impugned award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent where it duducts 1/3rd amount from annual income of the deceased for his personal expenses, for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation under the head of loss of economic dependency and it is declared that the claimant appellants are entitled for the amount of compensation under the head of loss of economic dependency taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/-per annum without there being any deduction therefrom. 7. In this way, the amount of compensation under the head of loss of economic dependency comes to Rs. 2,70,000/-(15000x18) and after deducting the Rs. 1,80,000/-the amount of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under this head, the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 90,000/-(2,70,000-1,80,000). On this amount the claimant appellants shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till 31st December, 2000 and at the rate of 9% from01.01.2001 till its realisation. 8. The non-claimant respondent No. 1, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, is directed to deposit the amount of enhanced compensation with interest thereon, as directed above, in this Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, by way of Account Payee Cheque/DD/Pay Order, drawn in the name of Registrar (Administration) of this Court. 9. On deposit of the amount aforesaid by the non-claimant respondent No. 1 RSRTC, the Court shall pass the order of its investment/disbursement. The registry to place the matter for orders. On Board immediately after the amount is deposited as per aforesaid directions.