Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2610 (RAJ)

Partunath, Sohani Devi v. Nanuram

2011-11-29

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Since both the appeals arise out of a common award, they were heard and are being decided together by this judgment. 2. Claimants have preferred both the appeals dissatisfied with award dated 30.09.2002 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, in MAC Cases No.194 and 196 of 1996, by which learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- and Rs.2,44,800/-, respectively, to the claimants with costs of Rs.1000/- in each claim petition. Learned Tribunal has also awarded interest on the compensation at the rate of 9% per annum. 3. Appeal No.354/2003 has been filed by Partunath and Smt. Sohani Devi, parents of deceased Om Prakash. Om Prakash was working as khalasi on a jeep, which met with accident and therein he died. Learned Tribunal held the truck driver responsible for the accident, which was insured with respondent New India Assurance Company Limited, and, on that basis awarded the compensation of Rs.1,92,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for appellants has argued that in death claim of Om Prakash filed by his parents, the Tribunal has erred in law in not accepting his agriculture income and only treated him as unskilled labour and, on that basis, determined his income at Rs.1500/- per month. It was argued that the deceased at relevant time was 20 years of age and, therefore, as per 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), multiplier of 18 should have been applied whereas learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16 only. No compensation whatsoever has been awarded on the head of loss of love and affection and future care which the claimants would have received in their old age. 5. Appeal No.348/2003 has been filed by Smt. Manni Devi, the widow, and Suneeta, Keshar Dev, Chhigni Devi and Taramani, the children of deceased Moolchand. Moolchand was owner and driver of the jeep, which met with accident and therein he died. Learned Tribunal held the truck driver responsible for the accident, which was insured with respondent New India Assurance Company Limited, and, on that basis awarded the compensation of Rs.2,44,800/-. Moolchand was owner and driver of the jeep, which met with accident and therein he died. Learned Tribunal held the truck driver responsible for the accident, which was insured with respondent New India Assurance Company Limited, and, on that basis awarded the compensation of Rs.2,44,800/-. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that when the income of the employee i.e. Khalasi was accepted to be Rs.1500/- per month, learned Tribunal could not have merely accepted monthly income of the employer at Rs.1800/-, specifically when it was proved that he was owner of the jeep. For the age of 22 years the multiplier of 17, applied by learned Tribunal, cannot be said to be correct in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, and, at this age, multiplier of 18 should have been applied. There were/are five claimants and, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, in this case deduction ought to have been confined to only 1/4th rather than 1/3rd. Nothing has been awarded for the loss of consortium as well as love and affection. 6. The appeals be therefore allowed enhancing the compensation suitably. 7. Learned counsel for respondent insurance company opposed the appeals and argued that in the case of deceased Om Prakash if the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, is applied, then 50% should be deducted for unmarried person. He was unmarried and, therefore, if learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd for his self-expenses, that satisfies the requirement of enhancement as it is more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. 8. As regards the claim filed by Manni Devi and others, it was argued that mere fact that he was owner of the jeep, does not prove that he used to earn more than what is payable to an unskilled labour. It is not necessary that a jeep owner would get passengers every day or that a jeep would be hired by someone daily. Learned Tribunal has rightly concluded so. 9. In so far as claim petition filed by Partunath and Sohani Devi, the mother and father of deceased Om Prakash, I find that learned Tribunal has accepted him to be a khalasi of the jeep and, therefore, has not accepted the assertion of the claimants that he also used to have the income from agriculture. 9. In so far as claim petition filed by Partunath and Sohani Devi, the mother and father of deceased Om Prakash, I find that learned Tribunal has accepted him to be a khalasi of the jeep and, therefore, has not accepted the assertion of the claimants that he also used to have the income from agriculture. However, in this case his contribution to the family has been accepted at Rs.1000/- only, multiplier of 16 has been applied whereas correct multiplier at the age of 20, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, is 18. Nothing has been awarded for pain and suffering and loss of future care which the parents would have received in their old age. 10. In the circumstances of the case, while accepting contribution to the parents of the deceased Om Prakash at Rs.1000/- and applying the multiplier of 18, compensation under the head of loss of dependency is raised to Rs.2,16,000/- and each of the parents are also additionally awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- i.e. total Rs.20,000/- for loss of love and affection and loss of estate as well as future care. They would also entitled to Rs.1000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, as costs of litigation. 11. Coming now to the Appeal No.348/2003, the income of Rs.1800/- has not been correctly determined by learned Tribunal because deceased Moolchand was the owner of the jeep and that his income ought to have been determined more than what had been ordinarily being paid to a labourer at the relevant time, and, therefore, his income is determined at Rs.2500/- per month. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, multiplier of 18, instead of 17 applied by learned Tribunal, is applied. The judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma also requires that deduction in the case where 5 claimants are there, should be only 1/4th, and not 1/3rd as deducted by learned Tribunal. One-fourth of Rs.2500/- comes to Rs.1875/-. While calculating thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants herein comes to Rs.4,05,000/- (1875x12x18). The widow Manni Devi is held entitled to receive Rs.20,000/- for loss of consortium and to each children (four in number) Rs.5000/- is awarded for loss of love and affection. Award of Rs.1000/- towards costs of litigation is maintained. 12. While calculating thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants herein comes to Rs.4,05,000/- (1875x12x18). The widow Manni Devi is held entitled to receive Rs.20,000/- for loss of consortium and to each children (four in number) Rs.5000/- is awarded for loss of love and affection. Award of Rs.1000/- towards costs of litigation is maintained. 12. The appellants in Appeal No.354/2003 are thus held entitled to receive total compensation of Rs.2,37,000/- (216000+20000+ 1000) instead of Rs.1,93,000/- (192000+1000) awarded by the Tribunal. They are also held entitled to receive interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. 13. The appellants in Appeal No.348/2003 are thus held entitled to receive total compensation of Rs.4,46,000/- (405000+20000+ 20000+1000) instead of Rs.2,45,800/- (244800+1000) awarded by the Tribunal. They are also held entitled to receive interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. 14. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date a copy of the judgment is produced before the respondent New India Assurance Company Limited. Both the appeals are accordingly allowed.