Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1328 (RAJ)

Balesh v. Shri Ranjeet Singh

2012-05-19

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2012
RAFIQ, J.—Claimants have preferred this appeal dissatisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District & Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide its award dated 10.09.2004 in MAC Case No.342/2004 (629/2000), whereby learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,17,000/- in a death case. 2. Learned counsel for appellants has pressed only two grounds. Learned counsel argued that learned Tribunal has erred in assessing monthly income of deceased at Rs.3,000/-. Looking to the length of service of deceased and nature of job which he was doing, learned Tribunal should have assessed his income towards higher side. Learned counsel for appellants has relied on 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), and argued that as per law laid down by the Supreme Court in that case, if dependents are more than four but upto six, the deduction should be of 1/4th for own expenses of deceased on analogy that deceased in that event would have spent more on the family rather than himself. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the compensation may be suitably enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. On the basis of evidence available on record, learned Tribunal determined monthly income of deceased at Rs.3,000/- and rightly deducted 1/3rd for own expenses of deceased. Learned counsel argued that at the relevant point of time, minimum wages of skilled labour was less than Rs.100/- per day and even if that is accepted to be daily income of deceased, as he was a driver, then also learned Tribunal has rightly determined his monthly income and in doing so it also added future prospects therein. The award is just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference by this court. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 4. On hearing learned counsel for appellants as well as learned counsel for respondents and perusing the material on record, I find that deceased was having driving licence to drive transport vehicle. The deceased at relevant point of time was 35 years of age. Accident took place on 24.02.2000. He had been working as driver since long. 4. On hearing learned counsel for appellants as well as learned counsel for respondents and perusing the material on record, I find that deceased was having driving licence to drive transport vehicle. The deceased at relevant point of time was 35 years of age. Accident took place on 24.02.2000. He had been working as driver since long. No doubt, a new driver in the year 2000 might have been receiving salary at Rs.3,000/- per month, but it cannot be accepted that a driver having much length of service, would have been receiving the same salary. The amount of Rs.3,000/- must be held to be salary of a new driver at relevant point of time. The deceased had been working as driver since long and he must have been held to have been receiving annual increments. Therefore, learned Tribunal has erred in accepting his monthly salary at Rs.3,000/-. Ends of justice would meet in case monthly salary of deceased is accepted at Rs.3,500/-. Ordered accordingly. 5. In present case, deceased has four dependents and, as per ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd for own expenses of deceased and keeping in view number of dependents it should have deducted 1/4th only for own expenses of deceased. 6. As discussed above, monthly salary of deceased is accepted at Rs.3,500/-. After deducting 1/4th (Rs.875/-) for own expenses of deceased, monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.2625/-. Learned Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 17, looking to age of deceased to be 35 years. Calculating thus, the compensation would come to Rs.5,35,500/- (2625x12x17). Award of Rs.9,000/- on non-pecuniary heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, is maintained. 7. Claimant-appellants are thus entitled to receive compensation of Rs.5,44,500/- (535500+9000) instead of Rs.4,17,000/-. The appellants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on enhanced amount of compensation from date of filing of claim petition till actual payment thereof. Appeal accordingly stands partly allowed.