Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2897 (RAJ)

Jai Shri Motwani v. Ilyas

2005-11-08

AJAY RASTOGI

body2005
Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant appeal has been filed by claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Jaipur District (“Tribunal”) vide award dated 19.02.2001 in MACT Case No. 579/1994. 2. Claimants are wife, three minor children and mother of deceased Jairamdas Motwani, aged 48 years working as Manager, Jaipur Nagar Gramin Anachalik Bank, Branch Shahpura (Jaipur), drawing monthly salary of Rs. 7,532/-as per salary certificate (Exhibit-16). On 22.07.1994, while travelling in jeep No. RJ14-C-4564 from Shahpura to Jaipur City, when reached near Amer, offending truck No. RJ-14-6877 coming with high speed from opposite direction, being rashly and negligently driven by its driver, collided with the jeep resulting into causing death of the deceased on the spot. 3. After taking into consideration material on record despite salary certificate (Exhibit-10) which described gross salary of Rs. 7,532/-, the Tribunal after considering aspect of future prospects since deceased had 8-10 years more to serve, during which he might have earned further promotion and annual increments, assessed his monthly salary of Rs. 11,296/-and after 1/3rd towards personal expenses, considered Rs. 7,532/-as monthly financial dependency of the family and after applying multiplier of 6, awarded compensation of Rs. 5,60,304/-(including Rs. 15,000/-towards consortium, love and affection, and Rs. 3,000/-for funeral expenses and loss of estate) with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing claim petition till actual payment. 4. Shri Nitin Jain, Counsel for claimants contends that the deceased was 48 years of age and serving as Manager in aforesaid Bank in substantive capacity and salary certificate (Exhibit-10) clearly proves that he was drawing monthly gross salary of Rs. 7,532/-and that apart, as per statement of Om Prakash (AW. 2), deceased being 48 years of age, had almost 10 years more to serve but the multiplier of 6 adopted by the Tribunal is not justified for grant of just and reasonable compensation, because multiplier of 11 as per 2nd Schedule appended to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”) ought to have been applied by Tribunal. 5. 2), deceased being 48 years of age, had almost 10 years more to serve but the multiplier of 6 adopted by the Tribunal is not justified for grant of just and reasonable compensation, because multiplier of 11 as per 2nd Schedule appended to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”) ought to have been applied by Tribunal. 5. Per contra, Shri S.R. Jatav, Counsel for Insurance Company has supported the impugned Award and urged that compensation awarded by Tribunal is based after taking note of complete material on record and that apart future prospects have also been considered while determining his gross salary and dependency of the family in such circumstances, after applying proper multiplier of 6 keeping in view the fact of 8-10 years more to serve, the impugned compensation is just and reasonable, and requires no interference by this Court. 6. I have pondered over rival contentions of the parties and with their assistance, perused material on record. There remains no dispute that deceased at the time of death was 48 years of age and his monthly gross salary as per salary certificate (Exhibit-16) was Rs. 7,532/-, in my opinion, no error has been committed by the Tribunal in determining monthly salary of the deceased. 7. As regards future prospects, the Counsel did also lay much stress for reconsideration but keeping in view material on record, and after having considered finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard, in my considered opinion, what has been considered and assessed by Tribunal towards financial dependency of the family, being just and fair, requires no interference by this Court. 8. As regards application of proper multiplier, indisputably, deceased was 48 years of age at the time of accident and as per evidence on record, the deceased had 10 years more to serve. 9. Apex Court in Abati Bezbaruah vs. Dy. Dir Gen. Geological Survey of India, AIR 2003 SC 1817 held that provisions contained in 2nd Schedule appended to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”) have proved to be a guidelines so far as the cases covered under the said Schedule are concerned and in Para 11, the Apex Court observed as under:- “11. It is now settled principle of law that the payment of compensation on the basis of structured formula as provided for under the second schedule should not ordinarily be deviated from. It is now settled principle of law that the payment of compensation on the basis of structured formula as provided for under the second schedule should not ordinarily be deviated from. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down the guidelines for determination of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166 thereof . Deviation of the structured formula, however, as has been held by this Court, may be resorted to in exceptional cases. Furthermore, the amount of compensation should be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of each case.” 10. As per Schedule appended to the Act, multiplier in ordinary course would have been of 11, which the Tribunal failed to take note of , and accordingly claimants are entitled to compensation after adopting multiplier of 11 as per the Schedule. Applying multiplier of 11, loss of income comes to Rs. 9,94,224/-(Rs. 7,532/-as assessed by Tribunal x 12 x 11.). 11. As regards compensation towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and consortium to wife and other claimants, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 18,000/-, which in my considered opinion, requires no interference in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,12,224/-. 13. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation for a sum of Rs. 4,51,920/-(Rs. 10,12,224/-minus Rs. 5,60,304/-awarded by Tribunal), which shall also carry interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment. Enhanced compensation with interest shall be deposited by Insurance Company through A/c payee bank draft/pay order before the Tribunal within two months. 14. The Tribunal is further directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation under Monthly Income Scheme of Post Office for a term of six years in joint name of claimants (wife and children) who will be entitled to receive monthly interest on post office MIS account supra as well as full amount of MIS on its maturity. 15. To the above extent, impugned Award stands modified. No order as to costs.