Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 165 (RAJ)

Santosh Devi v. Sohan Lal

2008-01-21

S.P.PATHAK

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the Judgment/Award dated 10.05.2004 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in MAC No. 776/04, whereby in all Rs. 5,77,488/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants. 2. The case of the claimants is that on 06.11.2001 Shri Chhote Lal was going on a motor-cycle bearing number RJ-29-1 M-5499 towards Jaipur. When he reached near Ganesh Pipe Factory, Khokala, a Jeep bearing number RJ- 29-P-0395, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, came from opposite direction and hit the motor-cycle, resulting in severe injuries to Chhote Lal. On account of severe injuries; Chhote Lal died. In the claim petition it was stated that Shri Chhote Lal was employed in Army and was a young man of 23 years of age and was earning Rs. 5,658/- p.m. It was also averred that deceased Chhote Lal was having bright future. In different heads compensation was sought of Rs. 59,84,000/-. The owner and driver of the Jeep remained absent and they did not contest the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The Insurance Company contested the claim and filed its written statement. The learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case. The claimant examined three witnesses namely; Smt. Santosh, Ashok and Kanhaiya Lal. Several documents were tendered in evidence. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The learned Tribunal decided three issues in favour of the claimant and while deciding issues No. 4 and 5 which were in relation to quantum of compensation in all awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,77,488/- vide its award dated 10.05.2004. Hence, this misc. appeal. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that in the instant case the learned Tribunal committed an error in making deduction of GPF amount from the income of the deceased for the purpose of awarding compensation. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence and the compensation has been awarded at the lower side. 4. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is a reasoned one and needs no interference by this Court. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence and the compensation has been awarded at the lower side. 4. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is a reasoned one and needs no interference by this Court. As regards the error committed by the learned Tribunal while making deduction of GPF amount from the total monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of making calculation and awarding compensation is concerned, is not disputed, in as much as that the learned Tribunal fell in error while reducing GPF amount for the purpose of calculation and awarding compensation. 5. I have considered the submissions made before me. 6. In the present matter the point for consideration is that as to whether the learned Tribunal erred on finding on the basis of salary certificate, monthly income of the deceased Rs. 5,658/- p.m., correctly made deduction of Rs. 1500/- p.m. which were being paid in GPF by the deceased for the purpose of calculating and awarding compensation. The position of law is settled and it has not been disputed before me that, amount paid towards GPF is not required to be reduced from the income for the purpose of calculation and awarding compensation. Therefore, the calculations in this matter, in my opinion, looking to the age and future prospects of deceased requires to be made, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 5,660/50 (Rs. Five Thousand Six Hundred Sixty only). From this amount ⅓rd deduction is required to be made against personal expenses of the deceased. The entitlement of amount of compensation after applying the multiplier of 17 which is not disputed comes 3,777 x 12 x 17=Rs. 7,69,760/- (Rs. Seven Lac Sixty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty only) under the head of loss of income instead of Rs. 5,65,488/- + Rs. 12,000/- have already been awarded by the learned Tribunal under different heads. The total amount of compensation to which the claimants are entitled is Rs. 7,81,760/- and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs to be modified to the above extent. 7. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and instead of Rs. 5,77,488/-, the appellant shall be entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,81,760/- and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs to be modified to the above extent. 7. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and instead of Rs. 5,77,488/-, the appellant shall be entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,81,760/- along with interest as determined by the learned Tribunal from the date of passing the award. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid to the claimants within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the appellants shall be entitled to receive interest @ 12% p.a.Appeal partly allowed. *******