Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1668 (RAJ)

Moongi v. Bihari Lal

2006-05-15

VINEET KOTHARI

body2006
Judgment Dr. Vineet Kothari J.-Heard learned Counsel 2. This appeal is directed against the award dated 19.09.1997 of MACT, Jaipur District, Jaipur while deciding Claim Case No. 208/92 (Smt. Moongi & Ors. vs. Bihari Lal and Ors.) in an accident which took place on 29.06.1991 when a truck No. RNG-2734 turned over and hit another truck DEL-3549, result of said accident, deceased Prabhu Narain who was sitting in truck No. RNG-2734 fell down and was crushed to death by another truck No. DEL-3549. The said person was an agriculturist and was of 33 years of age at the time of death. 3. The Tribunal after holding in favour of claimants that the said death resulted on account of rash and negligent driving of said vehicle, proceeded to compute the compensation in favour of legal representatives of said deceased Prabhu. The income of said person was claimed to be Rs. 3000/-per month. However, the Tribunal computed the net income of Rs. 2000/-per month and after making deduction of Rs. 500/-towards personal expenditure, computed the dependency benefit at Rs. 1500/-per month and thus arrived at such benefit at Rs. 2,16,000/-(1500 x 12x12). The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal was 12 for computing the said benefit. Rs. 10,000/-was awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of love and affection and thus total compensation was arrived at Rs. 2,26,000/-. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants in the present appeal submits that not only the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12 which is lower than the one prescribed in second schedule in the Act which came into force on 111.1994 and taking a cue of said schedule, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. Even in the present case, though the accident has taken place in 1991, he further submits that the Tribunal has failed to take into account future prospects of increase in net amount and also no deduction out to have been made from the net income estimated by the Tribunal which indicates that said person belong to lower income group. 5. Even in the present case, though the accident has taken place in 1991, he further submits that the Tribunal has failed to take into account future prospects of increase in net amount and also no deduction out to have been made from the net income estimated by the Tribunal which indicates that said person belong to lower income group. 5. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that multiplier of 12 adopted by the Tribunal is just and fair and resonings given by the Tribunal that the said compensation awarded by the Tribunal would yield the same average monthly income for the family which could have been there looking to the prevailing rate of bank interest at that time and, therefore, case does not demand any enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Having heard learned Counsel, and upon perusal of the Award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is rather comparatively less and calls for atleast a moderate enhancement of compensation. It is true that looking to the Bank interest rate prevailing those days, the reasonings given by the Tribunal might appear justified but it is the known fact that interest rates have since fallen sharply these days and with increasing inflation and reducing money value, same analogy cannot hold much water now. The object of said beneficial legislation incorporated in the Act is to provide compensation which is just and fair to the legal representatives so that having suffered the death of bread winner of family, they are not stranded. 7. In view of this, this Court is of the view that if the multiplier of 17 is adopted and the same income estimated by the Tribunal is taken into account, it would result in moderate enhancement which should make the ends of justice meet. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the dependency benefit should work out to Rs. 3,06,000/-(1500x12x17). This would result in net increase of Rs. 90,000/-in favour of the claimants which would bear interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing this appeal i.e., 112.1997 till the date of disbursal. The diference amount with interest shall be paid by the Insurance Company within a period of three months in MIS Account for maximum period of local post office where claimants reside. 90,000/-in favour of the claimants which would bear interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing this appeal i.e., 112.1997 till the date of disbursal. The diference amount with interest shall be paid by the Insurance Company within a period of three months in MIS Account for maximum period of local post office where claimants reside. The Claimant No. 1 Smt. Moongi W/o late Prabhu Narain and other claimants shall be entitled to draw monthly interest on such deposit. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.