Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2334 (RAJ)

Prem Devi v. Raju @ Rajendra

2011-11-03

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—No body remained present on behalf of appellants when the matter was taken up for hearing on 01.11.2011 and it was passed over for today making it clear in case no one remains present on next date of hearing the matter shall be decided on merits in absence of the appellants. Even today, no one is present on behalf of the appellants to argue the matter, therefore, the matter is being decided on merits, in absence of the appellant. 2. Heard Shri Sukh Ram Jatav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent United India Insurance Company Limited. 3. This appeal has been filed by claimant-appellants aggrieved by award dated 04.10.2001 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in MAC Case No.93/1998, whereby learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,600/- against total claim of Rs.17,63,000/- for death of Prabhudayal, the husband of appellant No.1 Smt. Prem Devi. 4. Appellants have preferred the appeal on various grounds including that monthly income of the appellant should not have been taken as only Rs.2100/-. He being a driver, should be held to have been earning Rs.3,000/- per month and, at the age of 25, the multiplier of 18 should have been applied instead of 17 in view of second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act and judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another – (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), wherein it has been held that for the age group of deceased between 15-20 years and 21-25 years, multiplier of 18 should have been applied. The Supreme Court therein further held that if there are four or more dependents, the deduction towards self-expenses of deceased should be taken as 1/4th and not 1/3rd and, thus, the loss of dependency should be taken as 3/4th. 5. Learned counsel for respondent insurance company opposed the appeal and argued that the deceased died in the year 1997 and, therefore, the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, would not be applied to the present case as it was pronounced much after the date of the accident took place in present case. It was argued that there are other grounds with regard to violation of conditions of the licence and also of the composite negligence. It was argued that there are other grounds with regard to violation of conditions of the licence and also of the composite negligence. However, those arguments cannot be considered because respondent insurance company has not preferred any appeal against impugned award. 6. Having heard learned counsel for respondent insurance company and perused the material on record, I am of the view that looking to the age of the deceased at the time of his death and keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, the learned Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 18 instead of 17. On the aspect of deductions under head of self-expenses, even if it is accepted that there are five dependents then also, as per ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, the deductions under that head should be 1/4th and not 1/3rd on the analogy that the deceased may not have been contributing more to the family. Monthly income of the deceased determined by the learned Tribunal at Rs.2100/- cannot be said to be unreasonable considering the fact that the accident took place in the year 1997 and at that time a driver would have been earning only that much of amount. 7. The monthly income of the deceased, as determined by the learned Tribunal, is Rs.2100/- and after deducting 1/4th therefrom towards his self-expenses, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.1575/-. The appellants are thus entitled to receive compensation of Rs.3,40,200/- (1575x12x18) under the head of loss of dependency. The compensation of Rs.15,000/- under non-pecuniary heads i.e. Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection and consortium and Rs.5000/- under the head of transportation and funeral expenses, is maintained. 8. The appellants thus be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.3,55,200/- (Rupees three lac fifty five thousand two hundred only) as total compensation. The appellants shall be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, which shall be paid to the appellants within a period of three months. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.