Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1166 (RAJ)

R. S. T. C. v. Shiv Kanwar

2008-04-29

BHANWAROO KHAN

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - The respondents No.1 and 2 are wife and son of deceased Laxman Singh aged 28 years, who on 25.4.1985 at about 10.00 a.m. while going to Pali in Roadways bus bearing No. RSG-82 met an accident near Chungi Outpost, Sojat. While overtaking a truck, the respondent No.1 Kalyan Singh drove the bus in such a rash and negligent manner that it collided with a truck, which was coming from the front direction, which ultimately led into death of deceased Laxman Singh. A claim was filed by the petitioners-respondents No.1 and 2 Shiv Kanwar and Dinesh Singh against the appellant and respondents No.3 to 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat vide judgment dated 3.1.1997 awarded the claim of Rs.2,65,000/- in favour of the petitioners-respondents No.1 and 2 and against the appellant and respondents No. 3 to 5. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant respondent No.3 preferred this appeal. 2. The respondents No.3 and 4 failed to appear before the Tribunal against whom ex-parte proceedings were taken. The appellant-respondent in the reply denied the allegation of the petitioners-respondents No.1 and 2. On behalf of the petitioner-respondent, two witnesses were produced. No evidence was led on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal after evaluating and analysing the evidence, documentary as well as oral, passed an award against the appellant and respondents No.3 and 4 and in favour of the petitioners-respondents No.1 and 2. 3. Both the parties were heard and the file was gone through. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that deceased Laxman Singh was Government employee in Mines and Geology Department as Nakedar and was having salary of Rs.840/- only. The Tribunal without any reason or base treated the said salary as Rs.2,000/- and by deducting ⅓rd of the income as his personal expenses, the multiplier of 15 was given which is against the statutory provision. There is no evidence either oral or documentary and the Tribunal without having power or authority suo-moto increased the salary of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month being against the statutory provision cannot be approved. A Government servant if earned definite amount of salary that alone should be treated as his income which is Rs.840/- per month. Moreso, the consortium of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded to the wife of the deceased which is on the exorbitant side, as the Statute provide a limit to it. A Government servant if earned definite amount of salary that alone should be treated as his income which is Rs.840/- per month. Moreso, the consortium of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded to the wife of the deceased which is on the exorbitant side, as the Statute provide a limit to it. Contrary to the Statute, it should not have been given. The love loss compensation of Rs.25,000/- has also wrongly been given. The award given by the Tribunal is in excess in every head which requires curtailment as per norms and statutory provision. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners-respondents No.1 and 2 pleaded that though the salary of deceased Laxman Singh is admitted, but looking to the future emoluments which could have been earned by the deceased while remaining in service should have been counted and the Tribunal while doing so if has treated the salary of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month has committed neither any illegality nor any irregularity. Future prospects should have been visualised and effected upon it. The award so given is justifiable and proper. No interference is needed in the award. The consortium amount was given looking to the young age of the deceased's wife who has to remain widow throughout rest of her life and love loss if given Rs.25,000/- in no circumstances can be said to be excessive. The award passed by the Tribunal is proper and no interference is warranted at this stage. 6. The admitted fact is about the salary of the deceased, who was 28 years old, at the time of death was Rs.840/- per month. The Tribunal without any base, reason and on the basis of hypothecation treated the salary of Rs.2,000/- of the deceased can in no circumstances be approved. Simply at whims, the Tribunal has treated the salary of the deceased as Rs.2,000/-against the fixed and certain amount of salary as Rs.840/- which was being received by the deceased at the time of death. The salary so received cannot be increased whimsically. The multiplier in Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act under Section 163A provides 18 years as multiplier looking to the age of the deceased. The salary so received cannot be increased whimsically. The multiplier in Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act under Section 163A provides 18 years as multiplier looking to the age of the deceased. After deducting ⅓rd amount of personal expenses of the deceased and if given 18 years as multiplier to the rest of amount, the compensation awarded comes out to be Rs.1,20,960/- whereas the Tribunal has awarded this amount as Res.1,70,000/- which is in excess and against the statutory provision of the Act. The petitioners-respondents No.1 and 2 are entitled to Rs.1,20,000/- instead of Rs.1,70,000/-. 7. The consortium amount looking to the young age of the wife of the deceased if has given Rs.50,000/-, that in all circumstances, it is an exorbitant amount. Though the respondent No.1 has to remain a widow, the mental and physical agony suffered by her cannot be measured in terms of money but the Court can not go beyond statutory provision, as the second Schedule under Section 163A of the Act provides a limit of Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium in the head general damages in case of death. The Tribunal while awarding Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium has gone beyond the statute, which can not be permitted. The consortium amount awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.5,000/- only, so also the case of love loss. The amount of Rs.75,000/- for love loss is also in the higher side which is also quantified as Rs.5,000/- only. The medical expenses of Rs.5,000/- incurred is also being given. For pain and suffering the amount is fixed Rs.5,000/-, so the total amount of award comes out to Rs.1,20,000+5000+5000+5000 = 1,35,000/-, which the claimants are entitle to recover. 8. The total amount of award as discussed above comes out to be Rs.1,35,000/- whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,65,000/- which is in excess as discussed above. The petitioners respondents No.1 and 2 were simply entitled the award of Rs.1,35,000/-. To this extent, the appeal deserves to be accepted. 9. The appeal filed by the appellant against the petitioners-respondents No.1 and 2 is partly allowed and instead of award of Rs.2,65,000/-, an award of Rs.1,35,000/- is passed in favour of the petitioners-respondents No.1 and 2 and against the appellant. The appellants are entitled to get an interest on the amount which remain unpaid as per order of the Tribunal. 9. The appeal filed by the appellant against the petitioners-respondents No.1 and 2 is partly allowed and instead of award of Rs.2,65,000/-, an award of Rs.1,35,000/- is passed in favour of the petitioners-respondents No.1 and 2 and against the appellant. The appellants are entitled to get an interest on the amount which remain unpaid as per order of the Tribunal. Rest all other directions of Tribunal about the mode of payments and F.D.R. to be deposited in the Bank are maintained. No order as to costs.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******