Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1758 (RAJ)

Chandra Kanta Agarwal v. Mohar Singh

2010-10-21

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant misc. appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellants have challenged the impugned award dated 03-06-1998 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short the Claims Tribunal ) in civil suit No.495/1992 whereby an award of Rs. 349500/- has been passed along with interest@12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition with certain other directions. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that late Shri. Laxminarayan Agarwal was working as Accountant in the respondent No.2 Corporation. At about 2.30 p.m. he went for urinal outside the workshop, bus No.RJ-14P-0209 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 struck to late Laxminarayan and crushed him to back wheels, due to which he sustained injuries and died in the hospital. 3. The respondents filed replies and stated that because of mistake of deceased the accident took place. 4. The claims Tribunal framed three issues and the claimant produced evidence in support of their case. 5. The claims Tribunal after hearing passed the impugned award dated 03-06-1998 by which it an awarded an award of Rs. 3,49,500/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition and certain directions were also given. 6. The claimants appellants feeling aggrieved with the impugned award dated 03-06-1998 passed by the Claimants Tribunal, has filed instant misc. appeal for enhancement of the award. For the purpose he has drawn attention of the Court to the Judgment of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 : ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ). Para 10 of the aforesaid judgment is relevant which runs as under : "10. Generally, the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation. The question is whether actual income at the time of death should be taken as the income or whether any addition should be made by taking note of future prospects? Generally, the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation. The question is whether actual income at the time of death should be taken as the income or whether any addition should be made by taking note of future prospects? In Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ (SC) 1 : ( AIR 1994 SC 1631 ) , this court held that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand (annual contribution) to the dependents; and that where the deceased had a stable job, the court can take note of the prospects of the future and it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the actual income of the deceased at the time of death. In that case, the salary of the deceased, aged 39 years at the time of death, was Rs. 1032/- per month. Having regard to the evidence in regard to future prospects, this court was of the view that the higher estimate of monthly income could be made at Rs. 2000/- as gross income before deducting he personal living expenses. The decision in Susamma Thomas was followed in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, 1996 ACJ 581 (SC) : ( AIR 1996 SC 1274 ) , where the deceased was getting a gross salary of Rs. 1543/- per month. Having regard to the future prospects of promotions and increases, this court assumed that by the time he retired, his earnings would have nearly doubled, say Rs. 3000/-. This Court took the average of the actual income at the time of death and the projected income if he had lived a normal life period and determined the income as Rs. 2200/- per month. In Arati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India, 2003 ACJ 680 (SC) ( AIR 2003 SC 1817 ) , as against the actual salary income of Rs. 42000/- per annum (Rs. 3500/- per month), at the time of accident, this court assumed the income as Rs. 45000/- per annum, having regard to the future prospects and career advancement of the deceased who was 40 years of age." 7. He submits that in the light of the judgment of Sarla Mudgal (supra), the impugned award needs to be enhanced to Rs. 106000/- more i.e. from Rs. 349500/- to 455500/-. 45000/- per annum, having regard to the future prospects and career advancement of the deceased who was 40 years of age." 7. He submits that in the light of the judgment of Sarla Mudgal (supra), the impugned award needs to be enhanced to Rs. 106000/- more i.e. from Rs. 349500/- to 455500/-. Thus, the impugned award dated 03-06-1998 passed by the claims Tribunal be modified. 8. Mr. Virendra Agarwal, learned counsel appearing of the non-claimant respondents has not opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Kamal Gupta, learned counsel for the claimants appellants except the fact that the interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal be reduced from 12% to 6% because at the time of decision of the claim petition, the interest applicable at the relevant point of time was Rs. 6% p.a. 9. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case as also the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra), the impugned award dated 03-06-1998 passed by the Claims Tribunal needs to be interfered with and the amount of award needs to be enhanced but interest part needs to be reduced. 10. In the result this civil misc. appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award dated 03-06-1998 passed by Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.495/1992 is modified to the extent that the amount awarded to the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 455500/- instead of Rs. 349500/-. However, the appellants claimants shall get interest @ 6% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition.Appeal partly allowed. *******