Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2573 (RAJ)

Shaitan Singh v. Bhanwar Singh

2011-11-24

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—The facts of the appeal are that a claim petition was filed by the appellants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur asserting that Smt. Prabhat Kanwar wife of Shri Shaitan Singh aged 30 years was on 24.5.1996 coming along with her sisters Hans Kanwar and Vimla Kanwar in a jeep No.RJ-06-T-0038. The jeep reached near the Harihar Bhojanalaya, Rampura, National Highway No.11 at 4.30 PM. When it stood on kachcha side of the road, a roadways bus came in a very fast speed being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the jeep, which was standing in kachcha, as a result of which, Hans Kanwar and Pratap Kanwar died on the spot, while Vimla died later on in the hospital. The police registered FIR against the driver and filed charge sheet. The Tribunal by the impugned award decided three claim petitions together. In the case of present appellants, claim case No.1021/1996 was allowed with direction to the respondent-RSRTC to pay to them a sum of Rs.2,00,000 as compensation together with interest @ 9% per annum. Feeing aggrieved thereby, the appellant have approached this Court by filing the appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the statement of AW-1 Shaitan Singh and AW-4 Sumer Singh. Both of them have stated that Prabhat Kanwar was doing tailoring work and her house hold work at house and was earning Rs.30-40 per day from tailoring. Apart from that she was supporting her husband and family. It has been further contended that now a days, even a normal labourer used to earn Rs.2,000 per month and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in granting a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000. The Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier method at least accepting the income of the deceased to be Rs.2,000/- per month and also taking into consideration the future prospects. Nothing has been separately awarded under the head of pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc. Even the rate of interest on the amount of compensation has not been correctly awarded by the Tribunal. 3. Nothing has been separately awarded under the head of pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses etc. Even the rate of interest on the amount of compensation has not been correctly awarded by the Tribunal. 3. None has appeared for the respondents for last two-three dates and even today also, therefore, the findings recorded in the award are taken as arguments on behalf of respondents and on that basis this Court proceeded to examine the matter. 4. In Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar-2001 ACJ 1735, the Supreme Court has stated that merely because the deceased died in the accident was a household wife, the Court cannot proceed on the assumption that she has no contribution to the family and her contribution to the family cannot be doubted. The Supreme Court in that case has directed that the income of the household wife would be accepted at Rs.3,000 per month. The observations of the Supreme Court is quoted thus: "So far as the deceased housewives are concerned, in the absence of any data and as the housewives were not earning any income, attempt has been made to determine the compensation, on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the housewives, appropriate multiplier has been applied, but the estimation of the value of services rendered to the house by the housewives, which has been arrived at Rs.12,000 per annum in cases of some and Rs.10,000 for others, appears to us to be grossly low. It is true that the claimants who ought to have given data for determination of compensation, did not assist in any manner by providing the data for estimating the value of services rendered by such housewives. But even in the absence of such data and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be Rs.3,000 per month and Rs.36,000 per annum. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 and 59 and as such who were active in life. This would apply to all those housewives between the age group of 34 and 59 and as such who were active in life. The amount of compensation awarded, therefore, should be re-calculated taking the value of services rendered per annum to be Rs.36,000 and thereafter, applying the multiplier as has been applied already and so far as the conventional amount is concerned, the same should be Rs.50,000 instead of Rs.25,000 as given under the report. So far as the elderly ladies are concerned, in the age group of 62 to 72, the value of the services rendered has been taken at Rs.10,000 per annum and the multiplier applied is eight. Though the multiplier applied is correct, but the value of services rendered at Rs.10,000 per annum, cannot be held to be just and, we, therefore, enhance the same to Rs.20,000 per annum. In their case, therefore, total amount of compensation should be re-determined, by taking the value of services rendered at Rs.20,000 per annum and then after applying the multiplier, as already applied and thereafter, adding Rs.50,000 towards the conventional figure." 5. In a recent case of Arun Kumar Agrawal & Anr. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.- 2010 ACJ 2161 = 2010(2) CCR 1351 (SC), the Supreme Court has reiterated that very principle by observing that even a non-earning household wife should be accepted to be earning and at least her income should be accepted at Rs.5,000/- per month for the purpose of computation of amount of compensation. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has not given any reasoning as to why it has awarded only a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000 and not awarded any sum whatsoever on the various other heads, such as loss of love and affection, loss of consortium to the husband, funeral expenses etc. The observations of the Supreme Court in para 32 and 33 of the judgment is quoted thus: "32. In our view, it is highly unfair, unjust and inappropriate to compute the compensation payable to the dependents of a deceased wife/mother, who does not have regular income, by comparing her services with that of a housekeeper or a servant or an employee who works for a fixed period. In our view, it is highly unfair, unjust and inappropriate to compute the compensation payable to the dependents of a deceased wife/mother, who does not have regular income, by comparing her services with that of a housekeeper or a servant or an employee who works for a fixed period. The gratuitous services rendered by wife/mother to the husband and children cannot be equated with the services of an employee and no evidence or data can possible be produced for estimating the value of such services. It is virtually impossible to measure in terms of money the loss of personal care and attention suffered by the husband and children on the demise of the house wife. In its wisdom, the legislature had, as early as in 1994, fixed the notional income of a non-earning person at Rs.15,000 per annum and in case of spouse, 1/3rd income of the earning/surviving spouse for the purpose of computing the compensation. Though section 163-A does not, in terms apply to the cases in which claim for compensation is filed under section 166 of the Act, in the absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in clause (6) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier keeping in view the judgments of this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Tras. Corpn. vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) = RLW 1995(2) SC 19; U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. vs. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 = RLW 1996(2) SC 130 (SC) and Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Trans. Corpn., 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC) and also take guidance from the judgment in Lata Wadhwa's case, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC). Approach adopted by different Benches of Delhi High Court to compute the compensation by relying upon the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker does not commend our approval because it is most unrealistic to compare the gratuitous services of the house wife/mother with work of a skilled worker. 33. Reverting to the facts of this case, we find that while in his deposition, appellant No.1 had categorically stated that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000 per annum by paintings and handicrafts, the respondents did not lead any evidence to controvert the same. 33. Reverting to the facts of this case, we find that while in his deposition, appellant No.1 had categorically stated that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000 per annum by paintings and handicrafts, the respondents did not lead any evidence to controvert the same. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal and the High Court altogether ignored the income of the deceased. The Tribunal did advert to the Second Schedule to the Act and observed that the income of the deceased could be assessed at Rs.5000 per month (Rs.60,000 per annum) because the income of her spouse was Rs.15,416 per month and then held that after making deduction, the total loss of dependency could be Rs.6,00,000. However, without any tangible reason, the Tribunal decided to reduce the amount of compensation by observing that the deceased was actually non-earning member and the amount of compensation would be too much. The High Court went a step further and dismissed the appeal by erroneously presuming that neither of the claimants were dependent upon the deceased and services rendered by her could be estimated as Rs.1,250/- per month" 6. This appeal is therefore deserves to be succeed and is accordingly allowed. The deceased Prabhat Kanwar was aged 30 years and at that age the multiplier of 17 is applicable and if his income is accepted at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month and 1/3rd is deducted for self expenses, the monthly income comes to Rs.1400 (approx). The loss of income is thus assessed at Rs.2,85,600 (1400x12x17). The husband is no more now, but at the time of filing of claim petition, he was alive, therefore, he should be held liable to Rs.10,000 for loss of consortium. Each of the children are granted a sum of Rs.5,000 for loss of love and affection and an additional sum of Rs.5,000 is awarded for funeral and transportation charges etc. Thus the appellants are entitled to receive Rs.3,10,600 (285600 + 10000 + 10000 + 5000) as total amount of compensation. The appellants are also entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on the enhanced amount. 7. The appeal is thus partly allowed. 8. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents.