Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 401 (RAJ)

Gajendra Singh v. Amar Lal Arora

2012-02-10

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - These two miscellaneous appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act of 1988') by the claimants-appellants relating to the same vehicular accident and arising out of the common award dated 28.01.1999 as made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur ('the Tribunal') in the respective claim cases [Nos. 192/1994 (757/1995) and 193/1994 (758/1995)], have been considered together and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. 2. The claim cases aforesaid were filed by the respective claimants-appellants seeking compensation for the loss suffered by them due to the demise of the victims Shri Surendra Singh and Shri Roop Singh in the same vehicular accident. The appellants are the parents of the said victims. 3. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,08,000/- to the claimants-appellants of CMA No. 251/1999; and an amount of Rs. 1,04,400/- to the claimants-appellants of CMA No. 252/1999. The Tribunal has also allowed interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the respective claim applications. 4. The claimants-appellants submit in each of the appeals that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is much on the lower side and needs to be enhanced. 5. The only question arising for consideration in these appeals being the quantum of just compensation, dilatation on all the background aspects does not appear necessary. Suffice is to notice for the present purpose that on 21.04.1994, the victims Surendra Singh and Roop Singh, while riding a bicycle, sustained injuries on being hit by the offending vehicle bearing registration No.RJ13 G-1113; and they expired due to such injuries. The Tribunal has found that the accident occurred for rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle bearing registration No. RJ13 G-1113; and has held the persons related with the vehicle, the non-applicants Nos.1 & 2, liable for compensation. 6. The Tribunal has carried out quantification of compensation in the respective claim cases as follows: CMA No. 251/1999: 7. In the claim case relating to CMA No. 251/1999 [Claim SBCMA No. 251/1999. Case No. 192/1994 (757/1995], the Tribunal has found that the deceased Surendra Singh was aobut 17 years of age and was studying in 7th standard. The Tribunal has disbelieved the assertion of the claimants that the deceased was earning about Rs. 1000/- per month. In the claim case relating to CMA No. 251/1999 [Claim SBCMA No. 251/1999. Case No. 192/1994 (757/1995], the Tribunal has found that the deceased Surendra Singh was aobut 17 years of age and was studying in 7th standard. The Tribunal has disbelieved the assertion of the claimants that the deceased was earning about Rs. 1000/- per month. The Tribunal has considered various aspects relating to the future including likelihood of marriage of the victim and has put an estimate on the dependency of the claimants-parents at Rs. 500/- per month; and looking to the age of the parents in the bracket of 35-40 years, has considered it proper to assess the pecuniary loss at Rs. 96,000/- with application of multiplier of 16. The Tribunal has further awarded general damages to the claimants in the sum of Rs. 12,000/- and in this manner, has made the award in the sum of Rs. 1,08,000/-. CMA No. 252/1999: 8. In the other claim case relating to CMA No. 252/1999 [Claim Case No. 193/1994 (758/1995)], the Tribunal has considered the fact that the deceased Roop Singh was about 20 years of age, who was an unmarried person and was earning as a mason. In this case also, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the future aspects about likelihood of marriage of the victim and has put an estimate on the dependency of the parents at Rs. 700/- per month; and has assessed the pecuniary loss at Rs. 92,400/- with application of SBCMA No. 251/1999. a multiplier of 11 on the consideration that the parents were above 50 years of age. In this case also, the Tribunal has awarded general damages in the sum of Rs. 12,000/-; and in this manner, has made the award in the sum of Rs. 1,04,400/-. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued for enhancement of compensation in these cases with the submissions that the amount awarded by the Tribunal on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, remains much on the lower side and is not that of just compensation. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent has duly supported the award impugned. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent has duly supported the award impugned. 10. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the record, this Court is of the view that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal in each of these cases remains rather on the lower side and calls for suitable enhancement. 11. In this nature cases, of course, no fixed or static formula is available for determining compensation under the Act of 1988; and the same is required to be determined taking into account the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court for these type of cases and on the basis of relevant factors and circumstances. CMA No. 251/1999: 12. The victim Surendra Singh in this case was an unmarried person in 17 years of age. The assertion about his SBCMA No. 251/1999. existing income has been disbelieved. However, his parents have been shown to be in the age group of 35-40 years. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of opinion that the award of compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- stands much on the lower side and needs suitable enhancement. This Court finds that in this nature cases where various awards have been made allowing compensation in the lumpsum of Rs. 1,80,000/-, allowing such an amount to the claimants-appellant would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the award amount in the present case deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 1,80,000/-; and in the result, the claimants appellants would be entitled to a further amount of Rs. 72,000/- after adjustment of the amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,80,000 - Rs. 1,08,000 = Rs. 72,000/-). This Court is of the view that the enhancement of the award amount by the said sum of Rs. 72,000/- and allowing the same to the claimants together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application shall serve the cause of justice; and the resultant amount to be received by the claimants-appellants would be that of just and reasonable compensation. CMA No. 252/1999: 13. In this case, the victim Roop Singh was about 20 years of age and has been earning about Rs. 100/- per day while SBCMA No. 251/1999. working as a mason. CMA No. 252/1999: 13. In this case, the victim Roop Singh was about 20 years of age and has been earning about Rs. 100/- per day while SBCMA No. 251/1999. working as a mason. In the circumstances, it appears just and proper to put an estimate on the earning of the victim at about Rs. 3000/- per month. Of course, the victim had been an unmarried person and the parents are shown to be in the age bracket of about 50 years. In the totality of the circumstances of this case, it appears just and proper that for the purpose of assessment of pecuniary loss, the multiplicand on an estimate of dependency of the claimants-parents be taken at 50% of the estimated income of the victim, i.e., Rs. 1500/- per month and to apply the multiplier of 13. In this manner, the assessment of pecuniary loss comes to Rs. 2,34,000/- (Rs. 1500 x 12 x 13) and retaining the amount of Rs. 12,000/- towards general damages as awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,46,000/-. After adjustment of the amount of Rs. 1,04,400/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are held entitled to a further amount of Rs. 1,41,600/- (Rs. 2,46,000/- - Rs. 1,04,400/-). This Court is of the view that the enhancement of the award amount by the said sum of Rs. 1,41,600/- and allowing the same to the claimants together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application shall serve the cause of justice; and the resultant amount to be received by the claimants-appellants would be that of just and reasonable compensation. 14. In view of the above, these appeals succeed and are partly allowed; and the impugned award dated 28.01.1999 in each of the claim cases aforesaid stands modified accordingly. In CMA No. 251/1999 [Claim Case No. 192/1994 (757/1995], the claimants-appellants shall be entitled towards compensation another amount of Rs. 72,000/- together with interest 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application. In CMA No. 252/1999 [Claim Case No. 193/1994 (758/1995)], the claimants-appellants shall be entitled another amount of Rs. 1,41,600/- together with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application. 15. 72,000/- together with interest 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application. In CMA No. 252/1999 [Claim Case No. 193/1994 (758/1995)], the claimants-appellants shall be entitled another amount of Rs. 1,41,600/- together with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application. 15. The respondents shall deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within 30 days from today with the Tribunal who shall carry out apportionment and disbursement in the manner and proportion as contemplated in the award impugned. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal Allowed. *******