Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 48 (RAJ)

Rukmani v. Mukesh

2008-01-07

N.K.JAIN

body2008
Judgment Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Admit. Shri Deepak Goyal appears for contesting-respondent. 2. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is finally heard. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The legal representatives of deceased Ramlal have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of the amount of compensation against the impugned Award dated 4th July, 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,45,400/- in favour of the claimants. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued only one point about wrong assessment of income of the deceased by the learned Tribunal. According to him, the deceased Ramlal was earning Rs.100/- per day and there was no admission on the part of AW-2 Pappulal or any other applicant's witnesses to the effect that the wage of 'mistri' (mason) at the relevant time was Rs.60/- per day. He contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly interpreted the statement of applicant's witnesses, therefore, the income of the deceased may be assessed as Rs.100/- per day and accordingly the amount of compen-sation may be enhanced. So far as age of deceased and multiplier applied in the present matter is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants has not disputed the finding of the learned Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 contended that there was no documentary evidence in support of the income of the deceased, therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard is absolutely correct and no interference in it is called for. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Award particularly the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.2 relating to quantum of compensation. The certified copies of the statements of AW-1 Rukmani, AW-2 Pappulal, AW-3 Ramesh Chandra Meena and AW-4 Ishwarlal were also referred by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of his contention. 8. The certified copies of the statements of AW-1 Rukmani, AW-2 Pappulal, AW-3 Ramesh Chandra Meena and AW-4 Ishwarlal were also referred by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of his contention. 8. The learned Tribunal has referred the statement of AW-2 Pappulal, and as per the Tribunal, this witness, in his crossexamination, admitted that wage of 'mistri' in 1996 was Rs.60/- per day and, on the basis of his statement, it recorded a finding that there is no basis for assessing the income of the deceased Ramlal at the rate of Rs.100/- per day and consequently he assessed the amount of compensation on the basis of Rs.60/- per day. 9. I have read the statements of AW-1 to AW-4. AW-2 Pappulal, in his examination-in-chief, contended that he and Ramlal both were 'mistri'; Ramlal was getting Rs.100/- per day at the relevant time and at present the daily wage of 'mistri' is Rs.125/-. His statement was recorded on 4th April, 2001. In his cross-examination by the counsel for the Insurance Company, he stated that it is wrong to say that in the year 1996 the daily wage of 'mistri' and 'beldar' was Rs.60/- and Rs.40/-, respectively. The statement of AW-2 Pappulal is very specific; he denied that in 1996 the daily wage of 'mistri' was Rs.60/-. The learned Tribunal has wrongly interpreted it taking that AW-2 Pappulal, in his cross-examination, admitted that the rate of 'mistri' in the year 1996 was Rs.60/- per day. It is further relevant to mention that AW-3 Ramesh Chandra Meena, in his examination-in-chief, stated that at the relevant time Ramlal Mistri was earning Rs.100/- per day. In his cross-examination, he specifically stated that it is wrong to say that the rate of 'mistri' was Rs.60/- per day. The deceased Ramlal was used to do his masonry work with AW-2 Pappulal and the statement of AW-2 Pappulal is very relevant in the present case to assess the income of the deceased at the relevant time. In the cross-examination, AW-2 Pappulal has stated as under:- “YAHA GALAT HAIN KI 1996 MEIN MISTRI KI BELDARI KI RATE KRAMSHAH 60 VA 40 RUPAYE HO.” 10. The above statement has been interpreted by the learned Tribunal in the manner that AW-2 Pappulal admitted that the rate of 'mistri' in 1996 was Rs.60/- per day. In the cross-examination, AW-2 Pappulal has stated as under:- “YAHA GALAT HAIN KI 1996 MEIN MISTRI KI BELDARI KI RATE KRAMSHAH 60 VA 40 RUPAYE HO.” 10. The above statement has been interpreted by the learned Tribunal in the manner that AW-2 Pappulal admitted that the rate of 'mistri' in 1996 was Rs.60/- per day. The finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard is perverse and cannot be allowed to be sustained. AW-2 Pappulal, in his examination-in-chief recorded on 4th April, 2001, stated as under:- “OOS SAMAY RAMLAL KO 100 RUPAYE MILTE THEYN. AAJ KI RATE MISTRI KI 125 RUPAYE HAIN. 11. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in reading the statements of AW-2 Pappulal and AW-3 Ramesh Chandra in respect of the income of the deceased properly and I am of the view that deceased Ramlal was earning Rs.100/- per day in the year 1996 as he was 'mistri' and, as per the statements of the applicant's witnesses referred to above, the rate of 'mistri' at the relevant time was Rs.100/- per day. In these circumstances the appropriate compensation should be Rs.3,84,000/- which is calculated thus – Rs.100x30 = monthly income Rs.3000/- and 3000x12 = yearly income Rs.36,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd therefrom on account of personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency comes to Rs.24,000/- and after multiplying it with the multiplier of 16 applied by the Tribunal and not questioned by the parties, the total compensation under the head of loss of income comes to Rs.3,84,000/- (24000x16). The learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, transportation and funeral expenses etc., and I am also of the view that the claimants are entitled to this amount of compensation of Rs.15,000/- under different heads, therefore, total amount of compensation in the present case comes to Rs.3,99,000/- (384000+15000). 12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Award is modified. The amount of compensation of Rs.2,45,400/- is enhanced to Rs.3,99,000/-. This enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim application till the date of realization. No order as to costs. 13. 12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Award is modified. The amount of compensation of Rs.2,45,400/- is enhanced to Rs.3,99,000/-. This enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim application till the date of realization. No order as to costs. 13. The enhanced amount with interest shall be deposited in the fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of five years with liberty to the claimant-respondents to withdraw the interest accrued thereon on monthly or quarterly basis.