Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2670 (RAJ)

Devendra Kanwar v. Gatu Lal

2005-10-17

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2005
Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been submitted by the claimants against the award dated 16.07.1997 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur in Claim Case No. 209/1996 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Basic facts regarding the accident and its cause resultant injury and death of the victim are not in dispute hence only a brief narration of background facts would suffice. The accident in question occurred on 15.04.1996 at Hospital Circle, Dungarpur. The deceased Chhatar Singh aged 55 years was going on his motorcycle from hospital to a medical store located on the circle when the non-petitioner Gatu Lal brought driving a tractor bearing registration number RJJ 2310 with trolley on the wrong side of the circle, hit and crushed Chhatar Singh, who sustained injuries and succumbed to those injuries. 3. The claimant-appellants claimed compensation against the driver, owners and insurer of the offending vehicle with the averments that the deceased Chhatar Singh was 55 years of age, he was working as an Inspector (Land Records) in the office of the Collector and his monthly salary was Rs. 6,412/-. According to the claimants, the deceased was head of the family and was also looking after the agriculture which was yielding further income of Rs. 4,000/-per month. The claimants alleged that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/-per month and was contributing Rs. 9,000/-per month to the family and would have continued to contribute the same in future. Stating the claim for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and property damage of motorcycle, the claimants sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,62,200/-. 4. The non-applicants No. 1 to 4, driver and owners of the vehicle contested the claim alleging that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and that there was no fault or negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor. The insurer non-applicant No. 5 contested, inter alia on the ground that the driver of the tractor was not holding valid driving licence. 5. After framing the issues necessary for determination of the questions involved in the case, the Tribunal recorded evidence led by the parties in which the claimants produced Smt. Devendra Kanwar PW. 1 and Vijay Shrimal, eye witness to the accident PW. 2. 5. After framing the issues necessary for determination of the questions involved in the case, the Tribunal recorded evidence led by the parties in which the claimants produced Smt. Devendra Kanwar PW. 1 and Vijay Shrimal, eye witness to the accident PW. 2. On the other hand, non-applicant Nania, co-owner of the tractor appeared in evidence on behalf of the non-applicants. The claimants produced relevant documentary evidence, which include salary bill of the deceased Exhibit-1, Site Inspection Report Exhibit-4 and Post-mortem Report Exhibit-5. 6. After hearing the parties, learned Judge of the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by non-applicant No. 1, which resulted in the death of Chhatar Singh. The objections raised by the insurer were not substantiated by any evidence and, therefore, all the non-applicants were held liable. The learned Judge proceeded to deal with quantification of compensation in issue No. 4 with the considerations that the deceased was to retire after three years and that only the applicant No. 1 and the applicant No. 6 were dependent on the deceased and all other claimants were adults and capable of earning and they were not dependent on the deceased. The learned Judge also observed that the deceased Chhatar Singh was spending substantial amount on himself and would have spent the amount of pension also upon himself; that no loss in the agriculture was established; and that under the rules of the Government one dependent of the deceased would be entitled to get Government Service; and also that no proof regarding repair of motorcycle was produced. As a consequence of such discussion, the learned Judge found that only the applicants No. 1 and 6 were entitled for compensation of a lump sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The applicant No. 1 was further allowed Rs. 5,000/-for the loss of company of her husband and an amount of Rs. 2,500/-was allowed towards funeral expenses. 7. Therefore, the Tribunal proceeded to pass an award of Rs. 1,07,500/-in favour of the applicants No. 1 and 6 and allowed interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application whereas the claim of applicants No. 2 to 5 was rejected. Aggrieved, the claimants have preferred this appeal. 8. The claimant-appellants have urged that the Tribunal was in error in awarding a lump sum of Rs. Aggrieved, the claimants have preferred this appeal. 8. The claimant-appellants have urged that the Tribunal was in error in awarding a lump sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-to the applicants No. 1 and 6 only and not considering likely contribution of the deceased to the family and in not assessing loss of contribution with appropriate multiplicand and not applying a correct multiplier and not awarding reasonable amount for loss of consortium and so also towards loss of love and affection for the claimants. Per Contra, learned Counsel for the insurer respondents No. 5 submitted that in view of the age of deceased of 55 years and the age of his claimant sons of 35 to 20 years, and in the overall circumstances of the case, the Tribunal cannot be said to be in error in awarding a lump sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-as compensation with further reasonable amount towards consortium and funeral expenses. 9. The only question calling for determination in this case is about quantification of compensation. 10. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having scanned through the entire record, this Court is clearly of opinion that the award made by the Tribunal remains grossly inadequate and inappropriate. The Tribunal was clearly in error in proceeding on entirely irrelevant considerations and in assuming that the grown-up sons of deceased deserve to be altogether deprived of likely contribution of the deceased to them. The Tribunal has even denied reasonable amount towards non-pecuniary losses. The amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to a just compensation and the award deserves to be suitably modified. 11. All the claimants have been shown to be residing together and forming a joint family with the deceased being head of the family, maintaining reasonable health and contributing to the family from his salary incomes as Inspector (Land Records) and also contributing to the agriculture. The deceased was 55 years of age and it has been established that his last drawn salary was Rs. 6215/-per month. Looking to the nature of the family, even if a liberal deduction is made from his income towards his personal expenses, this Court is clearly of opinion that a contribution of minimum Rs. 3,000/-per month could be reasonably expected from the deceased towards maintenance of his wife and one minor son and for development of family estate. It may be pointed out that this figure of Rs. 3,000/-per month could be reasonably expected from the deceased towards maintenance of his wife and one minor son and for development of family estate. It may be pointed out that this figure of Rs. 3,000/-per month has been taken after admitting more than 50% of the amount of his salary for personal expenses and keeping in view the eminent retirement after three years and other uncertainties but at the same time taking into consideration the likelihood of the deceased continuing to contribute to the family even after his retirement. 12. Therefore, in this case, the contribution factor of Rs. 36,000/-per annum could reasonably be adopted as multiplicand. With the deceased being 55 years of age, even if a lower side multiplier of 8 is provided, it leads to a figure of Rs. 2,88,000/-towards loss of contribution, as against Rs. 1,00,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, an enhancement of Rs. 1,88,000/-deserves to be allowed to the appellants. 13. Further, the Tribunal has totally denied any amount towards loss of love, affection and guidance of their father to the sons of the deceased and on this count a minimum amount of Rs. 2,000/ - toeach of the appellants No. 2 to 6 deserves to be allowed. Hence, non-pecuniary loss for the claimants also deserves to be enhanced by Rs. 10,000/-in addition to Rs. 5,000/-towards loss of consortium allowed to the appellant No. 1. While retaining Rs. 2,500/-awarded towards funeral expenses, total compensation comes to Rs. 3,05,500/-as against the amount of Rs. 1,07,500/-awarded by the Tribunal. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the award deserves to be enhanced by a sum of Rs. 1,98,000/-making a total award of Rs. 3,05,500/-in favour of the appellants. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, rate of interest shall also stand thoroughly modified and the claimants shall be allowed interest at the rate of 9% per annum instead of 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim application i.e., 012.1996. 15. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed; the impugned award dated 16.07.1997 is modified and further compensation of Rs. 1,98,000/-is allowed to the appellants and a total award of Rs. 3,05,500/-is made in favour of the claimants, who shall be entitled to receive interest on the entire amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from 012.1996. 16. 15. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed; the impugned award dated 16.07.1997 is modified and further compensation of Rs. 1,98,000/-is allowed to the appellants and a total award of Rs. 3,05,500/-is made in favour of the claimants, who shall be entitled to receive interest on the entire amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from 012.1996. 16. The amount payable under this modified award shall be deposited by the insurer, respondent No. 5 within thirty days, after due adjustment of the previous payments. The Tribunal having not provided for cash disbursement and term deposit of the award amount in the impugned award, it shall be required of the Tribunal to carry out apportionment of the award amount and to issue necessary directions for cash payment/deposits in accordance with law. 17. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.