Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 438 (RAJ)

Laxmi Narayan v. Shakur Mohd.

2007-02-27

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2007
R.S. Chauhan, J.—The appeal arises out of the award dt. 05.03.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 96,000/- to the appellants for the death of their widowed mother. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.09.1991 Smt. Gyarsi was traveling in a jeep, bearing Registration No. RNI-6288, from Jaipur to her village. As soon as the jeep arrived near the Village Lavan, suddenly from the opposite side a bus, bearing Registration No. RSG-6297, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the jeep. Consequently, Smt. Gyarsi expired. Since Smt. Gyarsi had already lost her husband, the claimants, her two minor children, were absolutely dependent on her for their financial and emotional support. Therefore, they filed a claim petition alongwith other persons, who were injured in the said accident before the learned Tribunal. The appellants contended that at the time of her death, Smt. Gyarsi was forty years old, was working as a labourer and was earning Rs. 40/- to Rs. 50/- per day. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal concluded that indeed, Smt. Gyarsi was forty years old, but held that she was merely earning Rs. 1,200/- per month. While applying the multiplier of 10, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation as mentioned above. In order to seek enhancement of the said compensation, the appellants have filed the present appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. K.N. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently contended that although the accident had taken place in the year 1991, but Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) had come into force prior to the passing of the award. Therefore, the learned Tribunal should have applied the Schedule-II as a guideline. According to the said Schedule, a multiplier of 16 should have been applied for a victim, who is forty years old at the time of death. However, without assigning any cogent reason, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of only 10. Therefore, a wrong multiplier has been applied by the learned Tribunal. He has further contended that although Laxmi Narain, the appellant No. 1, had clearly stated in his testimony that his mother was earning Rs. 40/- to Rs. However, without assigning any cogent reason, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of only 10. Therefore, a wrong multiplier has been applied by the learned Tribunal. He has further contended that although Laxmi Narain, the appellant No. 1, had clearly stated in his testimony that his mother was earning Rs. 40/- to Rs. 50/- per day, but the learned Tribunal has held her monthly income to be Rs. 1,200/- per month only, whereas it should have been held as Rs. 1,500/- per month. Thus, the income assessed by the learned Tribunal, is on the lower side. Therefore, he has prayed for enhancement of the compensation award. 4. Although the respondent No.3, United India Insurance Company Ltd., was served as far back as on 06.03.2002 and although the name of their counsel appears in the cause list, the counsel was not present before this Court even yesterday when the case was called for. Therefore, the case was posted for today. Even today, the counsel for the respondent No.3 has not appeared before this Court. Therefore, this Court does not have the benefit of his assistance. Hence, this Court has no option but to pronounce this judgment in the absence of the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned award. 6. Undoubtedly, the Schedule-II of the Act had come into force prior to the passing of the impugned award. Therefore, the learned Tribunal should have taken the Schedule-II of the Act as a guideline while assessing the compensation payable to the appellants. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly revelas that the learned Tribunal has not assigned any cogent reason for applying a multiplier of 10. According to the Schedule-II of the Act, a multiplier of 16 should have been applied. Thus, in the present case, in the interest of justice, we apply a multiplier of 16 in place of multiplier of 10. 7. Moreover, the appellant No.1 in his testimony clearly stated that his mother was earning Rs. 40/- to Rs. 50/- per day as a labourer. There is no evidence brought on record to rebut the said statement. Since the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, the higher figure of Rs. 50/- should have been accepted by the learned Tribunal. However, without assigning any cogent reason for accepting the lower figure of Rs. 40/- to Rs. 50/- per day as a labourer. There is no evidence brought on record to rebut the said statement. Since the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, the higher figure of Rs. 50/- should have been accepted by the learned Tribunal. However, without assigning any cogent reason for accepting the lower figure of Rs. 40/-, the learned tribunal has accepted the lower figure. In our considered opinion, the learned Tribunal should have accepted Rs. 50/- per month as the wages earned by the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income should have been assessed as Rs. 1,500/- per month. In case 1/3 of the income is deducted, then loss of dependency comes out to be Rs. 1,000/- per month. Applying the formula given in the Act, loss of dependency comes to be Rs. 1,92,000/-. 8. It is also surprising that the learned Tribunal has not granted any compensation for the non-pecuniary categories of loss of love and affection. Both the appellants were minor children at the time of filing of the claim petition while the appellant No.1 was 15 years old and the appellant No.2 was merely 10 years old. Both the children were taken care of by their widowed mother. With the loss of their mother, the children were orphaned for the rest of their lives. Thus, it was incumbent on the learned Tribunal to compensate for the children for the loss of love and affection of their parents. The learned Tribunal is expected to be sensitive to the needs of the children while dealing with cases when the children lose their parents. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant Rs. 30,000/- to the children in the category of “love and affection”. 9. In the result, the award dt. 05.03.1997 is modified to the extent that a compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/- should be paid for loss of dependency along with Rs. 30,000/- for loss of love and affection Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 2,22,000/- shall be payable to the appellants. Of course, the Insurance Company is allowed to adjust the amount already paid by it to the appellant. 05.03.1997 is modified to the extent that a compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/- should be paid for loss of dependency along with Rs. 30,000/- for loss of love and affection Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 2,22,000/- shall be payable to the appellants. Of course, the Insurance Company is allowed to adjust the amount already paid by it to the appellant. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the remaining compensation amount along with the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition to 05.03.2007 - the date of award and to pay interest @ 9% per annum from 01.07.1997 the date of filing of the appeal, till the date of realization. The learned Tribunal is directed to ensure that the compensation so directed to be paid is recovered from the Insurance Company within two months and is delivered to the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 within the said period. * * * * *