Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1191 (RAJ)

SURJIT SINGH v. DWARKA PRASAD

2005-04-21

DINESH MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BALIA

body2005
Judgment DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. ( 1 ) IN view of the short question involved in this appeal, the preparation of paper book is dispensed with. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits. ( 2 ) THIS intra-court appeal has been submitted by the claimants who filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Udaipur, claiming compensation on various heads on account of death of daljeet Kaur. It has been alleged by the claimants and held proved by the Tribunal that the deceased along with other members of the family was travelling in their maruti van when a vehicular accident was caused by rash and negligent driving by one Dharm Narain of mini truck bearing registration No. RNY 8418. The said mini truck hit the van causing injuries to Daljeet kaur, Gurmeet Kaur, Amarpal Singh and vineet Singh. Daljeet Kaur died as a result of the said injuries. ( 3 ) WHILE dealing with the question of quantification of the amount of compensation, Tribunal considered submissions of the claimants that deceased was 38 years of age and was engaged in the firm Shree gurunanak Enterprises getting Rs. 3,500 per month as salary with reference to the income tax return, Exh. 9. The learned Tribunal found that return was filed seven months after the death of Daljeet Kaur and there was no proof of any previous filing of return or deposit of income tax. The post-mortem report recorded the age of the deceased 40 years. On the overall facts and circumstances, the Claims Tribunal took the multiplicand of Rs. 1,500 towards the income contribution of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 11 awarded an amount of Rs. 1,98,000 and further awarded Rs. 10,000 towards mental agony and rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses. ( 4 ) THE claimants submitted the appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation. However, the learned single judge of this court summarily dismissed the appeal by a short order that no error was found in the finding of the Tribunal on the question of assessment of quantum. ( 5 ) WHILE entertaining the present appeal against the judgment dated 27/11/2000 passed by the learned single Judge, this court on 12. 2. However, the learned single judge of this court summarily dismissed the appeal by a short order that no error was found in the finding of the Tribunal on the question of assessment of quantum. ( 5 ) WHILE entertaining the present appeal against the judgment dated 27/11/2000 passed by the learned single Judge, this court on 12. 2. 2001 noted that the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 11, although the age of deceased was 38 years and in such cases, the usual multiplier is 15 years. On this point only, notice was ordered to be issued. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased while not taking into consideration the certificates Exh. 16 and Exh. 17 and the income tax return, Exh. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied after taking the income of deceased to be minimum of Rs. 3,500 and further prospects also deserve to be taken into consideration. Learned counsel for respondents has supported the award passed by the Tribunal. ( 7 ) HAVING perused the award passed by the Tribunal and having examined the evidence placed before us by the learned counsel for appellants for perusal, we are clearly of opinion that so far the assessment of the amount of income is concerned, the tribunal seems to have rightly rejected from consideration the income tax return, filed nearly 7 months after the death of daljeet Kaur, as there remains no material on record to show that there was any previous assessment of business or employment income of the deceased. Deceased had been stated to be a partner in the firm shree Gurunanak Enterprises vide Exh. 16 whereas appellant Surjit Singh has stated her to be in employment of the said firm. The certificate issued by the firm states that deceased had withdrawn an amount of rs. 32,500 in the year 1993-1994 but the nature of such withdrawal has not been clarified. In the overall circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that no fault can be found on the Claims Tribunal making a reasonable estimate of the income/contribution of the deceased at Rs. 1,500 per month. This court has also limited the scope of consideration in this appeal only regarding the multiplier to be applied by the order dated 12/2/2001. In the overall circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that no fault can be found on the Claims Tribunal making a reasonable estimate of the income/contribution of the deceased at Rs. 1,500 per month. This court has also limited the scope of consideration in this appeal only regarding the multiplier to be applied by the order dated 12/2/2001. ( 8 ) SO far as the multiplier adopted and applied by learned Tribunal is concerned, we are clearly of the opinion that the multiplier of 11 for the deceased who was 38-40 years of age is grossly inadequate. The structured formula in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act also provides for a multiplier of 16 in such cases and in our opinion, there is no reason for denying the multiplier of 16 in the present case. Applying the multiplier of 16, the appellants are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,88,000 as against Rs. 1,98,000 awarded by Tribunal towards pecuniary loss. ( 9 ) THE learned single Judge was clearly in error in summarily dismissing the appeal without considering the inadequacy of the award of the Claims Tribunal at least with reference to the multiplier adopted. ( 10 ) THE other points sought to be canvassed by learned counsel for appellants, in our opinion, cannot legitimately be permitted in view of the specific order dated 12/2/2001 of this court issuing notices in this appeal only on the question of multiplier. Even otherwise, we are satisfied that no further enhancement deserves to be allowed in this case. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid, this appeal is partly allowed and impugned judgment dated 27/11/2000 is set aside. The award dated 21/8/2000 passed by the Tribunal is modified and the compensation towards pecuniary loss is enhanced to Rs. 2,88,000 in place of Rs. 1,98,000 allowed by Claims tribunal. Resultantly, a further award of rs. 90,000 is passed in the favour of the appellants-claimants against the respondents. The appellants would also be entitled for interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application till realisation. The enhanced amount of award shall be distributed equally amongst claimants. Resultantly, a further award of rs. 90,000 is passed in the favour of the appellants-claimants against the respondents. The appellants would also be entitled for interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application till realisation. The enhanced amount of award shall be distributed equally amongst claimants. The appellant No. 1 Surjit Singh has been shown to be 45 years of age on 2/5/1999 and has stated the age of other claimants seema and Jaspreet as 21 years and 19 years respectively. In that view of the matter, we consider it appropriate to order that the enhanced amount of award be paid to claimants in their savings bank account. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.