Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2565 (RAJ)

Santosh v. Ravindra Singh

2011-11-24

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 6.8.2004 by which compensation of Rs.1,48,000 has been awarded to the claimants. The appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Shri K.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the amount of Rs.1,48,000 for the death claim of deceased Ratan Lal was on lower side. The deceased even though was aged 61 years and in postmortem report his age was mentioned as 65 years, but he used to supervise the work of cultivation of his agriculture field. He used to earn a sum of Rs.5,000 from cultivation of field apart from earning a sum of Rs.3,000 from the employment with the Government of India as Extra Departmental Postal Agent. Learned counsel argued that claimant No.1 Smt. Santosh in her cross examination has stated that deceased used to look after the agriculture field and also used to give the same on the basis of sharing of crops, but she stated that now there was no income from the agriculture field. The learned Tribunal has relied only on one part of the statement, whereas she stated that she used to give the agriculture field for cultivation on the basis of sharing of crops, but has ignored the other part. It cannot be therefore said that only income that she was having was from the agriculture field. It was argued that in rural areas the assignment of the work as Extra Departmental Agents or Branch Post Master are not regular employees but rather part time assignment where regular salary were not paid, but only a small amount is payable as honorarium. There are no provision for payment of pension after the death and the very fact that at the age of 61 years, the deceased was given that assignment as Branch Post Master indicates that it was not is regular vocation. He otherwise used to work on agriculture field and used to have income from the yield of the agriculture field. The income of the agriculture should be therefore separately assessed and included for arriving at the reasonable amount. He otherwise used to work on agriculture field and used to have income from the yield of the agriculture field. The income of the agriculture should be therefore separately assessed and included for arriving at the reasonable amount. On the one hand the multiplier of 5 has been applied due to the fact that the deceased was aged 61 years, on the other hand, the appellant would not get any family pension because of death as he was not in regular employment. It was argued that this Court may consider enhancing of the amount of compensation by adding element of income from agriculture field. The amount of Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, particularly at the advanced stage where the company of the spouse becomes very necessary, is very meager and it should be enhanced. It was argued that even the married daughters are not to be dependents of the deceased, yet some amount has to be awarded under the head of loss of love and affection to them. 3. Smt. Shruti Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that the widow AW-1 Santosh in her statement stated that her husband used to supervise agriculture work and used to give it on the basis of sharing of crops and the Tribunal was therefore justified in not accepting his income because the agriculture land would continue to remain with the claimants and they would continue to get the yield from that land. 4. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that although it is a fact that it has been proved in evidence of the deceased that he was working as Extra Departmental Post Agent and the nomenclature itself suggests that the deceased was not on regular rolls and as per the scheme of the postal department, such assignment is given to the permanent native of a village whereas the post office does not find it commercially viable to maintain a regular post office. It is done because maintaining a regular post office may require incurring enormous maintenance expenditure as also having large number of staff, which would be unnecessary for a small village where a minimal postal services may be needed. It can therefore be accepted that the deceased may have been having sufficient time to look after his agriculture field. It is done because maintaining a regular post office may require incurring enormous maintenance expenditure as also having large number of staff, which would be unnecessary for a small village where a minimal postal services may be needed. It can therefore be accepted that the deceased may have been having sufficient time to look after his agriculture field. Although the widow has stated that the agriculture land of approximately 20 bighas used to be looked after by her deceased husband and the land was also given on the basis of sharing of crops and now there is no income from the agriculture field because there was no one to look after that, but this part of her statement has to be read at one go and not in pieces and at the same time, it has to be accepted that the income from agriculture filed is continued to be received by the claimants, however, for loss of supervision of cultivation of the agriculture field, which is monitored by the deceased himself with the help of labourers or on sharing basis, it can safely be accepted to be a minimum loss of income of Rs.1,000 per month. Adding that amount to the amount of Rs.3,000, that was being received by the deceased by way of honorarium from the postal department, the monthly salary comes to Rs.4,000 and when out of which 1/3rd towards self expenses is deducted the monthly income comes to Rs.2700 (4000x1/3rd) and applying the multiplier of 5 at the age of 61 years, the amount comes to Rs.1,62,000 (2700x12x5). Considering the fact that the widow Smt. Santosh has lost the company of her husband at the very advanced stage, where the company of the spouse is very much needed as the accident took place in the year 2002 and she herself was 59 years at the time of accident still survive, the award of Rs.10,000 for loss of consortium is considered to be rather insufficient, which is raised to Rs.25,000/-. Even if the daughters are not held to be dependents, yet they are held entitled to some amount for loss of love and affection and therefore each of them are held entitled to Rs.5,000 each. The amount awarded under the non-pecuniary heads is however maintained. The amount of compensation thus comes to Rs.2,15,000 (1,62,000+25,000+10,000+15,000+3,000) Thus the award is enhanced from Rs.1,48,000 to Rs.2,15,000. The amount awarded under the non-pecuniary heads is however maintained. The amount of compensation thus comes to Rs.2,15,000 (1,62,000+25,000+10,000+15,000+3,000) Thus the award is enhanced from Rs.1,48,000 to Rs.2,15,000. The claimants are also held entitled to interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim petition. 5. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. 6. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents.