Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2563 (RAJ)

Manjulaben Waghela v. Huseinmiya Hydermiya

2011-11-24

K.S.JHAVERI

body2011
Hon'ble JHAVERI, J.—By way of this appeal, the appellants has challenged the judgment and award dated 28.09.1987 passed by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.73 of 1985, whereby the Tribunal has awarded the amount of Rs.1,02,680/- to the appellants. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that on 24.08.1984, deceased was coming from Manek Chowk to Victoria Garden side from Gol-limda on a bicycle. When deceased was passing near the main gate of AMC building, bus No.GTA-8486 driven by the respondent No.1 came in high speed from the backside of the deceased and dashed with the bicycle of the deceased and as a result, the deceased died instantaneously. 3. Learned advocate Mr.V.C.Desai for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has committed gross error in not considering future prospectives and not believing that deceased would have reached to the post of PSI. He has further contended that the Tribunal was also completely unjustified in applying multiplier of 10, the multiplier of 18 should be adopted, looking to the age of deceased. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, which is on lower side. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Bhaskar Tanna for the respondent has supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and further submitted that when the Tribunal has given the specific reasons for adopting the multiplier of 10, no interference is called for. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. So far as the aspect of determination of the amount of compensation is concerned, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC). In that decision, Apex Court reiterated the method of working out as to what would be the 'just' compensation. Applying the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, admittedly the basic salary of the deceased was Rs.761.30, rounding it to Rs.760/-. The monthly income of deceased Rs.1140 i.e.([Rs.760 x 2]= 1520 + 760 = 2280], [Rs.2280/2 = Rs.1140 p.m.]). From the aforesaid amount of Rs.1140/-, 1/4 amount i.e. Rs.285/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased is required to be deducted. The monthly income of deceased Rs.1140 i.e.([Rs.760 x 2]= 1520 + 760 = 2280], [Rs.2280/2 = Rs.1140 p.m.]). From the aforesaid amount of Rs.1140/-, 1/4 amount i.e. Rs.285/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased is required to be deducted. Thus, after deducting the same, the monthly loss of income would come to Rs.855/-([1/4 x Rs.1140= Rs.285], [Rs.1140–285=Rs.855]), rounding it to Rs.850/-. Thus, the annual loss of income would come to Rs.10,200/- (Rs.850x12= 10,200). 7. The deceased was admittedly aged about 29 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 10, which was completely unjustified, considering the age of the deceased. In my view, the multiplier of 15 is proper, therefore, the total loss of future income would come to Rs.1,53,000/- (Rs.10,200 x 15 = Rs.1,53,000/-). The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of expectation of life and Rs.1,000/- under the head of funeral expenses, but, in my view that amount is not reasonable. Therefore, Rs.20,000/- is awarded to the appellants under the head of loss of expectation of life and under the head of funeral expenses. Therefore, in all, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.1,73,000/- (1,53,000 + 20,000= Rs.1,73,000). Since, the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,02,680/-, the appellants shall be entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.70,320/-. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.70,320/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of filing of the claim petition, till realization. It is clarified that the interest at the rate of 7.5% shall be paid only on the additional amount, as stated above.