Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2620 (RAJ)

Veronika v. Lehru Lal @ Nehru Lal

2011-11-29

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—SBCMA No.1692/2003 has been filed by the claimant-appellants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation that was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ajmer to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- vide award dated 27.1.2003 and SBCMA No.1187/2003 has been filed by the owner-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur with the prayer to set-aside the aforesaid award passed by the Tribunal. Both the appeals related to accidental death of Robin Saini @ Shekhar in a road accident, which took place on 11.9.2000 involving the offending vehicle i.e. the bus of the RSRTC bearing No.RJ-09/-1334, which hit the Scooter being plied by Robin Saini @ Shekhar. 2. Shri Jai Prakash Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants argued that the learned Tribunal erred in law while holding that brother cannot be held to be dependent on the deceased though mother & father were held to be dependent upon him. Deceased was doing the work of motor mechanic with Munnalal Mistri and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Nothing has been awarded under the head of 'love and affection' and Rs.20,000/- ought to have been awarded under this head. Nothing has been awarded for pain and suffering. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.3,50,000/- in lump sum, which is liable to be enhanced. 3. Shri Ashok Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur has opposed the appeal filed by the claimant-appellants and argued in his appeal that there was no proof of income and that the evidence proved that the elder brother of the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- from a private firm and therefore he was not held to be dependent on the deceased therefore parents cannot be said to be solely dependent on the deceased and that award of Rs.3,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to unreasonable amount of compensation. Income of the deceased could not be accepted more than that what was the income of his elder brother Ashok, who was aged 25 years at the time of accident, whereas deceased was 24 years. Learned counsel argued that finding of the Tribunal as to negligence of the bus driver was perverse and erroneous. Deceased himself was also partly responsible for the accident and therefore it must be held to be a contributory negligence on his part. 4. Learned counsel argued that finding of the Tribunal as to negligence of the bus driver was perverse and erroneous. Deceased himself was also partly responsible for the accident and therefore it must be held to be a contributory negligence on his part. 4. Per contra, Shri Jai Prakash Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants has opposed the appeal of the RSRTC and has prayed for enhancement of compensation. It was argued that deceased was a diploma holder in the trade of motor mechanic and that evidence proved that he was working in the garage of Munnalal Mistry. It was argued that deceased would have been responsible for the care and protection of his parents ensuring contribution on his part to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month as what was not considered by the Tribunal and his income must have been more than what was to be earned. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the State of Haryana & Anr. vs. Jasbir Kaur & Ors. : 2003 R.A.R. 172 (SC) in which the Supreme Court held that in absence of proved income, Rs.3,000/- per month should atleast be accepted as a reasonable sum of income. It was prayed that nothing has been awarded to the parents for 'loss of love & affection and future care, funeral expenses etc'. The accident occurred in 2000 and at the relevant time, the motor mechanic would be receiving certainly Rs.3,000/- per month. Compensation ought to have been awarded by applying the multiplier of 18 in the age of 22-25 years because deceased was aged 24 years. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award, I find that learned Tribunal ought not to have awarded lump sum amount of compensation in a death claim case particularly when evidence was there that deceased was earning a reasonable sum and evidence was also adduced as regards the age of the deceased. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award, I find that learned Tribunal ought not to have awarded lump sum amount of compensation in a death claim case particularly when evidence was there that deceased was earning a reasonable sum and evidence was also adduced as regards the age of the deceased. As rightly argued, at the age of 24 years, multiplier of 18 should have been applied as per 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) but at the same time, judgment also provides that in the case of deceased being un-married, deduction to the extent of 50% would also be liable to be made for his own expenses. Even if therefore income of the deceased is accepted to be Rs.3,000/- per month, the monthly contribution to the family would maximum to be Rs.1500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- yearly, which what amount the deceased would contribute to the family and applying the multiplier of 18, this amount would come to Rs.3,24,000/- and if this amount is held payable with the amount of Rs.10,000/- each to the mother and father for the loss of love and affection and Rs.6,000/- on the head of funeral expenses etc., the amount exactly comes to Rs.3,50,000/-, which what has been awarded by the Tribunal. 6. No interference with the impugned is therefore called for. 7. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed. The remaining amount be paid by the appellant-RSRTC with interest as directed by the Tribunal within two months.