Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2055 (RAJ)

Kalyan v. Hari Singh

2011-09-22

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 19.9.2001 for enhancement of amount of compensation. 2. The appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal on account of accidental death of Satya Narayan involving the vehicle of the RSRTC. 3. Shri Tapesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants has made the following three arguments in support of appeal: "1. that the multiplier of 18 should have been applied for computing compensation, whereas the Tribunal has erred in law in applying the multiplier of 17. 2. that there are three dependants of the deceased Satya Narain, who were all claimants before the Tribunal and in view of the judgement of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.-(2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), 1/4th amount should have been deducted from the income of the deceased on account of self expenses, whereas in this case the Tribunal has deducted only 1/3rd amount. 3. that in view of aforesaid judgement of Sarla Verma, supra the deceased being only 22 years of age, should be held entitled to future prospects by adding 50% further to his expected income of Rs.1500 per month. 4. that appellant No.3 should have been awarded a minimum amount of Rs.25,000/- as consortium for loss of company of her husband. 4. Shri Dharmendra Pareek, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that accident in the present case took place on 27.10.1996 and, therefore, the ratio of judgement of Sarla Verma, supra being delivered in the year 2009 cannot be applied to the present case. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I am not inclined to uphold the argument that the ration of judgement of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra merely because it was delivered in 2009, cannot be applied to the present case. The further argument of the appellants that a multiplier of 18 should have been applied, is liable to be rejected in view of Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, according to which, for the age group of 20-25, a multiplier of 17 should be applied, which is taken as the best guideline for that purpose. The further argument of the appellants that a multiplier of 18 should have been applied, is liable to be rejected in view of Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, according to which, for the age group of 20-25, a multiplier of 17 should be applied, which is taken as the best guideline for that purpose. However, since there are 4-5 dependants of the deceased, the deduction towards self expenses should have been taken as 1/4th of the expected income. At the same time, on future prospcts also, as per the ratio of judgement of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, 50% amount should have been added to such expected income. In view of the fact that the appellant No.3 has been deprived of the company of her husband, she should also be awarded a reasonable amount of consortium. 6. In view of above, the appeal deserves to be succeed and is accordingly allowed. The appellants are held entitled to amount of compensation computing on the aforesaid basis by accepting income of the deceased as per the impugned award at the rate of Rs.1500 per month and thereby adding the future prospects of 50% i.e. Rs.750 and thereafter deducting 1/4th thereof i.e. Rs.550 in round figure. Thus the amount comes to Rs.1700 (Rs.1500+750-550) and on that basis the multiplier of 17 is applied. The computation of the income would come to Rs.3,46,800/- (Rs.1700x12x17). The appellants would be held entitled to interest at the rate of 6% only to the extent of enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 17.3.1997. Appellant No.3 is additionally held entitled to amount of Rs.10,000 for loss of consortium. 7. Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of three months from the date certified copy of the judgement is produced.