Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2198 (RAJ)

Harchand Ram v. Ummed Singh

2006-07-13

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2006
Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-Learned Counsel for the appellants has moved an application pointing out that Appellant No. 1 Harchand Ram had expired on 15.03.2006 leaving behind his sons as legal representatives who are already on record as Appellants No. 2 and 3 and has, therefore, prayed for deletion of his name from the array of parties. The application is allowed; name of Appellant No. 1 is ordered to be deleted from the array of parties. 2. By way of this appeal the claimant-appellants seek enhancement over the amount of Rs. 37,000/ - awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sirohi on account of accidental death of Smt. Mohini Devi, wife of Claimant No. 1 and mother of Claimants Nos. 2 and 3. 3. Brief facts relevant for determination of the questions involved in this appeal are that on 010.1987 in front of Dak Bungalow at Sheoganj, the deceased Smt. Mohini Devi, a pedestrian going for Temple darshan was hit by a truck bearing registration No. RRN 9693 driven by Non-applicant No. 1 Ummed Singh. Mohini Devi sustained injuries and died on the spot. The claimant-appellants made a claim for compensation on account of accidental death of Smt. Mohini Devi. For quantification of compensation, the claimants submitted that deceased Mohini Devi, 30 years in age, was looking after agricultural land and claimed compensation because of the loss occasioned thereto at Rs. 45,000/-; the claimants further alleged her savings of Rs. 6,000/-per annum by way of dairy business and claimed a loss of Rs. 1,80,000/-on that count. The claimants further claimed Rs. 1,00,000/-towards non-pecuniary compensation and Rs. 5,000/-towards funeral expenses and thereby made the claim in the sum of Rs. 3,30,000/-. The claim application was contested by the insurer and the Tribunal framed the following issues for determination of the questions involved in the case:- The claimants examined three witnesses AW-1 Harchand Ram (Claimant No. 1), AW-2 Indar Raj, eye-witness to the incident and AW-3 Bhanwar Singh, brother of Claimant No. 1 in relation to the earnings of deceased and the family set up. Non-applicants did not lead any evidence. 4. Learned Judge of the Tribunal decided Issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants and held that the offending truck hit Mohini Devi; and she died on being crushed beneath the front wheel of truck. Non-applicants did not lead any evidence. 4. Learned Judge of the Tribunal decided Issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants and held that the offending truck hit Mohini Devi; and she died on being crushed beneath the front wheel of truck. Taking up quantification of compensation, learned Judge of the Tribunal rejected all the assertions of the claimants regarding earnings of the deceased and held that Mohini Devi was a house wife and was looking after her household and observed that contribution of the deceased to the household could be quantified at Rs. 2400/-per annum and as her husband had contracted second marriage after five years, this loss be awarded at Rs. 12,000/-. Learned Judge further allowed Rs. 5000/-to the husband towards loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/-to each of the children for loss of company and guidance of their mother and in that manner arrived at the figure of Rs. 37,000/-to be awarded as compensation to the claimants and allowed interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 5. Learned Counsel for the claimants has urged that the quantification of compensation in the impugned award remains too low and deserves suitable modification by upward revision. Learned Counsel for the insurer has attempted his best to support the impugned award and submitted with reference to the period of accident and of this claim application of the year 1987-1988 that the impugned award cannot be said to be too low and, therefore, needs no interference. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record and the considerations adopted by learned Judge of the Tribunal, this Court is clearly of opinion that the impugned award on its quantification of compensation remains too low and inadequate and cannot be countenanced. A bare look at the impugned award shows that learned Judge has chosen to refer to various principles and aspects to be taken into consideration but then has failed to apply relevant principles and has merely allowed Rs. 5000/-as loss of consortium to the husband, Rs. 10,000/-to each of the children and then Rs. 12,000/-as pecuniary loss to the husband for five years taking that such loss would be available only for five years till he remarried. The consideration falls too short of reasonableness. 7. 5000/-as loss of consortium to the husband, Rs. 10,000/-to each of the children and then Rs. 12,000/-as pecuniary loss to the husband for five years taking that such loss would be available only for five years till he remarried. The consideration falls too short of reasonableness. 7. Even if the deceased is taken to be a housewife and non-earning member, the fact remains that deceased with the claimants comprised a family; and the tribulation suffered by family on being deprived of lady of the house at her young age of 30 years leaving behind two children who were 14 and 12 years of age cannot be ignored with mere reference to second marriage by the widower. Second marriage has been naturally contracted by the claimant-husband only under the force of circumstances and such fact by itself cannot result in restricting the amount of just compensation merely to the period of widowerhood. Loss of contribution occasioned because of accidental death of the lady of the house deserves to be accounted for and just compensation deserves to be allowed to the husband and the children. 8. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, even if deceased be taken as non-earning member and guidance be taken from the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court is of opinion that reasonable notional income for the purpose of just compensation ought to be adopted and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the set up of the distressed family and the period the incident pertains to, i.e. of the year 1987-1988, interest of justice will meet if the notional figure of loss of contribution be taken at Rs. 10,000/-per annum. In view of age of the deceased and the age of claimants, this Court is of opinion that a multiplier of 16 could be provided leading to a pecuniary loss figure of Rs. 1,60,000 /-. The husband of deceased deserves to be allowed Rs. 10,000/- towards loss consortium and each of the children deserves to be allowed Rs. 5,000/-for loss love and affection and guidance of their mother. A further amount of Rs. 2,000/ - deserves to be allowed towards funeral expenses and thereby an award of Rs. 1,82,000/-(Rs. 1,60,000/-+ Rs. 10,000/-+ Rs. 10,000/-+ Rs. 2,000) deserves to be made in favour of the claimant-appellants. 9. 5,000/-for loss love and affection and guidance of their mother. A further amount of Rs. 2,000/ - deserves to be allowed towards funeral expenses and thereby an award of Rs. 1,82,000/-(Rs. 1,60,000/-+ Rs. 10,000/-+ Rs. 10,000/-+ Rs. 2,000) deserves to be made in favour of the claimant-appellants. 9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the claimants are held entitled for a further amount of Rs. 1,45,000/-(Rs. 1,82,000/-- Rs. 37,000/-) and in view of substantial upward revision being made hererin, it is considered appropriate to allow interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application. 10. As a result of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 07.05.1994 is modified and the claimants are further awarded an amount of Rs. 1,45,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. It shall be required of the Respondent No. 3 to deposit the amount under this modified award within 30 days from today with the Tribunal. Claimant No. 1 husband of deceased having already expired, the amount shall be distributed equally between remaining two appellants. Half of the amount so deposited be paid in cash and remaining be placed in Monthly Income Scheme of Post Office for a period of six years and the appellants shall be entitled to receive periodical interest thereupon. There shall be no order as to costs of this appeal.