Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 381 (RAJ)

Bhawani Shankar v. Prithvi Singh

2009-02-05

GUMAN SINGH

body2009
Hon'ble SINGH, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These appeals have been preferred by the dependents of deceased Anil Kumar in CMA No.777/99 (claim case no.38/94), Sahdev in CMA No.133/99 (claim case no.52/94) and Rai Saheb in CMA No.137/99 (claim case no.70/94) for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli camp Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur vide judgment dated 13.11.1998 whereby a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(in claim case No.38/94), Rs.2,00,000/- (in claim case no.52/94) and Rs.2,75,000/- (in claim case no.70/94) was awarded by way of compensation. 3. According to the facts of the case, accident took place on 5.10.93 when all the deceased Anil Kumar, Sahdev and Rai Saheb were going from Jaipur towards Delhi by Car No.RRB-324. On account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle/truck No.HR-26-6148, all the deceased died in accident as the car was crushed under the truck. 4. The only challenge in these appeals pertains to the quantum of compensation. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation in lower side as the income of deceased person was assessed on lower side. It is further submitted that the multiplier adopted for computing the compensation also deserves to be adopted as per second schedule to the M.V.Act. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. Appeal No.777/99 (claim case No.38/94) 7. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that the learned Tribunal has given finding that the deceased was earning Rs.3500/- per month as he was working as car driver. It is further revealed that looking to the age of deceased multiplier of 11 deserves to be adopted instead of 10. As regards the deduction of Rs.15,00/- from the expenses of deceased, the learned Tribunal should have deducted 1/3rd as the rest of the amount should be treated to be used for the benefit of claimants. Thus while calculating the amount of compensation,1/3rd of the earning deserves to be deducted for computing the claim. As regards the deduction of Rs.15,00/- from the expenses of deceased, the learned Tribunal should have deducted 1/3rd as the rest of the amount should be treated to be used for the benefit of claimants. Thus while calculating the amount of compensation,1/3rd of the earning deserves to be deducted for computing the claim. Accordingly, amount can be computed as under: 2500 x 12 x 11 (multiplier) = 3,30,000-1/3rd = 2,20,000 – 1,80,000 (already awarded) =40,000 (to be additionally awarded) 8. Accordingly, appeal of the appellants is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants-claimants shall get a sum of Rs.40,000/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 20.3.99, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent back forthwith. Appeal No. 137/1999 (Claim Case No. 70/1994) 9. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that deceased was an Advocate at the time of accident. He was 45 years of old. 10. About the earning of deceased , learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he was earning about Rs.6000/- as an Advocate, apart from earning from agriculture land and his political activities. Hence monthly income assessed by the learned Tribunal amounting to Rs.3000/- should be enhanced. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company opposed the submissions but submitted that income may be assessed as per standing of the deceased as an Advocate. 12. In view of above, the income of the deceased deserves to be assessed @ 4500/- per month instead of Rs.3000/- as assessed by the learned Tribunal. Likewise, the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal is on lower side, therefore, multiplier of 13 deserves to be adopted looking to the age of deceased as per second schedule to the M.V.Act. Accordingly, amount can be computed as under: 4500 x 12 x 13 (multiplier) = 7,02,000-1/3rd = 4,68,000 – 2,40,000 (already awarded) =2,28,000 (to be additionally awarded). 13. Likewise, the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal is on lower side, therefore, multiplier of 13 deserves to be adopted looking to the age of deceased as per second schedule to the M.V.Act. Accordingly, amount can be computed as under: 4500 x 12 x 13 (multiplier) = 7,02,000-1/3rd = 4,68,000 – 2,40,000 (already awarded) =2,28,000 (to be additionally awarded). 13. Accordingly, appeal of the appellants is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants-claimants shall get a sum of Rs.2,28,000/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 1.2.99, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent back forthwith. Appeal No. 133/1999 (Claim Case No. 52/1994) 14. After hearing the rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that at the time of death of deceased Sahdev was 45 years old and he used to look after his agriculture field. Out of which he used to get a return of Rs.2.0 lacs per annum. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that personal earning of deceased should be treated in that light. 15. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company-respondent submitted that agriculture land is still yielding the same product but the loss of dependency of deceased should be assessed in view of his personal contribution on account of his supervision of agriculture activities. 16. In view of above submissions, the income of deceased deserves to be assessed as Rs.3000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his expenses on himself, compensation deserves to be computed @2000/-per month by adopting the appropriate multiplier of 13 under second schedule to the M.V.Act. Accordingly, amount can be computed as under: 2000 x 12 x 13 (multiplier) = 3,12,000/- 17. That apart, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. Thus amount of Rs.15,000/-deserves to be awarded for loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- deserves to be awarded for love and affection to the son and mother of deceased and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses. That apart, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. Thus amount of Rs.15,000/-deserves to be awarded for loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- deserves to be awarded for love and affection to the son and mother of deceased and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses. Thus total amount of compensation comes to Rs.3,12,000 + 15000 + 10000 + 5000 =3,42,000 - 2,00,000 (already awarded)= 1,42,000 (to be additionally awarded). 18. Accordingly, appeal of the appellants is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants-claimants shall get a sum of Rs.1,42,000/- by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 1.2.99, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter interest shall be paid @9% per annum. The rest of the terms of award shall remain unchanged. Record be sent back forthwith.