Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2570 (RAJ)

Mithilesh v. Rajasthan State Road Transportation

2011-11-24

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants assailing the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bharatpur dated 19.5.2004 seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that learned Tribunal has erred in law in accepting the income of the deceased to be only Rs.1800/- per month and further erred in law while deducting 1/3rd instead of 1/4th towards the own expenses of the deceased contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC) in view of the dependents being four. At the age of 31 years, the multiplier of 17 should be applied but the learned Tribunal erred in law while applying the multiplier of 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has also cited another judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi & Others vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Another : 2008 (2) TAC 394 (SC) and argued that according to the aforesaid judgment, income of the deceased should be accepted atleast at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is argued that the deceased was selected for the training course of dental technician vide order dated 25.9.1986, which is on record as Exh.9 and after completion of training, the Government Sattelite Hospital, Sethi Nagar, Jaipur given certificate to this effect on 31.12.1986. Smt.Mithilesh AW1 widow of the deceased in her statement has stated that her husband was running a dental clinic and he had his shop at the bus stand of Kumher and he used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. Learned counsel has also cited the statement of Samay Singh AW2, who in his statement stated that at the time of accident, deceased-Jagram was riding the bicycle on his correct left side and not on the mid of the road and it was bus of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, the "RSRTC") bearing No.RJ 05/P0 160 coming from Bharatpur side, which hit the deceased being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner. The appeal therefore be allowed and the award amount may be suitably enhanced. 3. Per contra, Smt.Manju Jain, learned counsel appearing for the RSRTC has opposed the appeal and submitted that mere production of the training certificate does not by itself prove that the deceased had income of Rs.6,000/- per month. The appeal therefore be allowed and the award amount may be suitably enhanced. 3. Per contra, Smt.Manju Jain, learned counsel appearing for the RSRTC has opposed the appeal and submitted that mere production of the training certificate does not by itself prove that the deceased had income of Rs.6,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has rightly accepted the income of the deceased to be Rs.1800/- per month because at the relevant time, deceased was earning Rs.60/- per day. There is no evidence to prove that the deceased was regularly running the dental shop at the bus stand of Kumher therefore statement of Smt.Mithilesh AW1, widow of the deceased cannot be relied on to hold so. The appeal therefore be dismissed. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perused the award, I find that it is not a case in which it can be said that there is no evidence as to what was the income of the deceased. The fact that deceased was running a dental clinic has been proved not only by his widow Smt.Mithilesh AW1 but also by Samay Singh AW2, who both have stated that the deceased had dental clinic in a shop, which was situated at the bus stand of Kumher. A suggestion was given to the widow as also to Samay Singh by the counsel for RSRTC in cross-examination that his daily income was Rs.50-60 per day, which has been denied by both. Amount of Rs.1800/- accepting the monthly income of the deceased even in a accidental death case, which took place in 2001, in the circumstances cannot be said to be just and proper. 5. Supreme Court in Laxmi Devi supra, has upheld judgment of the High Court, wherein it was held that notional income should be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month as per Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein, the Tribunal assessed the same at Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the said Act. That was inserted by Act 54 of 1994 but thereafter that slab has not been amended so far and that even wages for the skilled and unskilled labour have been revised upward since then. That was inserted by Act 54 of 1994 but thereafter that slab has not been amended so far and that even wages for the skilled and unskilled labour have been revised upward since then. In the present case, status of the deceased has to be accepted as more than what has been described for a normal labourer and on that basis, this Court can safely accept that he was earning not less than Rs.100/- per day. Considering the age of the deceased to be 31 years, the multiplier of 17 for the age group of 30-35 years should be applied as per the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) instead of multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bharatpur dated 19.5.2004 is modified in terms that as per computation of Rs.100/- per day income of the deceased, his monthly salary comes to Rs.3,000/- (100x30) and after making 1/4th deductions towards the own expenses of the deceased keeping in view the four dependents as per judgment of Sarla Verma, the monthly deducted income comes to Rs.2250/- (3000-750) and applying the multiplier of 17 the amount comes to 4,59,000/- thus : 2250x12x17= 4,59,000. However, the award on all other non-pecuniary heads i.e. Rs.20,000/- for love & affection and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses is maintained. The amount is computed thus : 4,59,000 + 22,000= 4,81,000. The compensation amount of Rs.2,52,400/- is enhanced to Rs.4,81,000/-. The appellants are entitled to receive interest @7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing claim petition. The record be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith.