Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 299 (RAJ)

Kasturi v. Kailash Chandra

2012-02-06

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 20.11.1996 passed in MAC No. 697/1994, whereby compensation of Rs. 2,14,000/- has been awarded. 2. The present appellants filed a claim petition on the death of Shri Ramlal, occurred on 1.9.1994 in a motor accident. The present appellant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased, appellant No. 2 is son and appellants Nos. 3 and 4 are present of deceased Ramlal. 3. The facts narrated in the claim petition are that on 1.9.1994, at about 8.30 petitioner, when deceased Ramlal was coming towards Nandpuri Bye-pass, truck No. RJ-26G-276, which was driven by the respondent No. 1, hit the deceased and he died due to this accident. 4. The contention of the present appellants is that at the time of the death the deceased was only 26 years of age. He was a mason and his daily income was Rs. 100/- per day but the Tribunal has arbitrarily ascertained his income as only Rs. 1500/- per month. It has also been stated that four persons were dependents on the deceased and hence instead of 1/3rd of deduction, only 1/4th deduction should be made from his income. It was also stated that for loss of love and affection and consortium a meager amount has been awarded and hence compensation should be enhanced. 5. Appellant No. Kasturi Devi stated that her husband was earning Rs. 100/- per day and he was a mason but in her cross examination, she has stated that her husband was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in 1994, the minimum wages of labourer was Rs. 60-65 per day and looking from any angle, income of Rs. 1,500/- is on lower side and looking to the dependency of the present appellants, the income should be assessed as Rs. 1,800/-. 7. Looking at the evidence produced before the Tribunal and taking note of the minimum wages at the relevant time, income of Rs. 1,500/- per month has wrongly been assessed and the same is on lower side and hence the income of the deceased should have been calculated as Rs.1,800/- per month. 1,800/-. 7. Looking at the evidence produced before the Tribunal and taking note of the minimum wages at the relevant time, income of Rs. 1,500/- per month has wrongly been assessed and the same is on lower side and hence the income of the deceased should have been calculated as Rs.1,800/- per month. Further, looking at the fact that the deceased was only 26 years of age at the relevant time, the learned Tribunal should also have considered the future prospects of the deceased and the learned counsel for the appellants has further stated that 50% of the income should be added to the existing income of the deceased and he has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in Chaji & Ors. vs. Girraj Singh & Ors. (2000 ACJ 291). He has also relied upon the judgment delivered in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. vs. Susamma Thomas (1994 ACJ 1 (SC) = RLW 1995(2) SC 19, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "While assessing the value of dependency, a higher gross income should be estimated having regard to future advancement and increase in the earning of the deceased. Supreme Court has estimated the gross income of the deceased by doubling the existing gross income of the deceased at the time of accident." 8. Looking at the above and taking note of the view that future prospects should be added, the income of the deceased should be calculated at Rs. 2,700/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount therefrom on account of personal expenses, the total income comes to Rs. 1,800/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17, hence loss of income comes to Rs. 1,800 x 12 x 17 = Rs. 3,67,200/-. The learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 2,14,000/-. Hence, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 3,67,200- 2,14,000 = Rs. 1,53,200/-. 9. The learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 10,000/- to the appellants for the loss of love and affection, which is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- each to the appellants Nos. 2 to 4 and for loss of consortium for appellant No. 1, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded. 10. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,53,200 + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 10,000 = Rs. 1,78,200/-. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and it is ordered that the compensation awarded is enhanced by Rs. 2 to 4 and for loss of consortium for appellant No. 1, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded. 10. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,53,200 + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 10,000 = Rs. 1,78,200/-. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and it is ordered that the compensation awarded is enhanced by Rs. 1,78,200/- along with interest @ 7-1/2% from the date of filing appeal till actual payment is made and this amount will only be payable to the appellant No. 1.