Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 402 (RAJ)

Smt. Kailash Kunwar v. Kalu Ram

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 19.02.1999 as made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in the respective claim cases (Nos.172/1992 and 173/1992), 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 on account of the loss suffered by them due to the demise of the victims Shri Kishore Singh and Shri Shambhu Singh in the same accident. The appellant of CMA No.422/1999 is the wife of the deceased Shri Kishore Singh; and the appellants of CMA No.461/1999 are the wife and children of the deceased Shri Shambhu Singh. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,07,200/- to the claimant-appellant of CMA No.422/1999 Smt.Kailash Kunwar; and an amount of Rs. 1,97,800/- to the claimants-appellants of CMA No.461/1999 Smt.Babbu Kunwar and others. The Tribunal has also allowed interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the respective claim applications. 3. 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. 4. 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 29.03.1992, the victims Kishore Singh and Shambhu Singh, while riding a scooter, sustained injuries on being hit by the offending vehicle bearing registration No.RPJ 3136; 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.RPJ 3136; and has held the persons related with the vehicle, the non-applicants Nos.1 & 2, liable for compensation. 5. The Tribunal has carried out quantification of compensation in the respective claim cases as follows:Claim Case No.172/1992 (CMA No.422/1999): 6. The Tribunal has found in this case that the deceased Kishore Singh was about 23 years of age. The Tribunal has noticed the submissions of the claimant that her husband had been earning Rs. 5. The Tribunal has carried out quantification of compensation in the respective claim cases as follows:Claim Case No.172/1992 (CMA No.422/1999): 6. The Tribunal has found in this case that the deceased Kishore Singh was about 23 years of age. The Tribunal has noticed the submissions of the claimant that her husband had been earning Rs. 800/- per month while working in a sugar factory and was also earning by way of agriculture and milk supply. The Tribunal has, however, observed that agriculture and other income was not lost on the demise of the victim and has considered it appropriate to assess the pecuniary loss on the basis of salary of the deceased at Rs. 800/- per month; and while deducting about one-third on the personal expenditure of the deceased, has assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 550/- per month and has allowed compensation in this regard at Rs. 79,200/- with application of the multiplier of 12. The Tribunal has further awarded general damages to the claimant in the sum of Rs. 28,000/- and in this manner, has made the award in the sum of Rs. 1,07,200/-.Claim Case No.173/1992 (CMA No.461/1999): 7. In this claim case, the Tribunal has considered the fact that the deceased was about 33 years of age and has considered it proper to take the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,761/- per month as per the salary certificate Ex.13; and, after deducting Rs. 561/- on his personal expenditure, has taken the monthly loss of dependency at Rs. 1,200/-; and with application of multiplier of 12, has assessed the pecuniary loss at Rs. 1,72.800/-. The Tribunal has further awarded compensation to the claimants in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards general damagaes and in this manner, has made the award in the sum of Rs. 1,97,800/-. 8. 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. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent has duly supported the award impugned. 9. 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. 10. 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.Claim Case No.172/1992 (CMA No.422/1999): 11. The age of the victim Kishore Singh has been taken as 23 years on the basis of the post mortem report. The claimant appellant has deposed that her husband was earning Rs. 800/- per month while working in sugar factory and in addition to that, he used to earn Rs. 2000-2500/- per month by undertaking the work of agriculture and milk supply. While not considering the income of deceased from agriculture and milk supply, the Tribunal has assessed the pecuniary loss after taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 800/- per month and loss of dependency at Rs. 550/- with application of a multiplier of 12 only. Even if the income of the deceased for the present purpose is taken at Rs. 800/- per month, there appears no reason not to apply the multiplier in this case at 17 while taking the loss of dependency at Rs. 600/- per month. In the opinion of this Court, it would be proper to apply a multiplier of 17 looking to the age of the victim. Hence, the assessment of pecuniary loss comes to Rs. 1,22,400/- (Rs. 600 x 12 x 17) and retaining the amount of Rs. 28,000/- towards general damages as awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is held entitled to a total compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,50,400/-. After adjustment of the amount of Rs. 1,07,200/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled to a further amount of Rs. 43,200/- (Rs. 1,50,400 - Rs. 1,07,200) which could be rounded up to Rs. 45,000/-. 1,50,400/-. After adjustment of the amount of Rs. 1,07,200/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled to a further amount of Rs. 43,200/- (Rs. 1,50,400 - Rs. 1,07,200) which could be rounded up to Rs. 45,000/-. This Court is of the view that the enhancement of the award amount by the said sum of Rs. 45,000/- and allowing the same to the claimant 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 claimant-appellant would be that of just and reasonable compensation.Claim Case No.173/1992 (CMA No.461/1999): 12. The age of the victim Shambhu Singh has been taken as 33 years. The claimant-appellant No.1 has deposed that her husband was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month while working as a driver. The deceased has left behind wife and three minor children. The Tribunal has assessed pecuniary loss after taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,761/- per month and loss of dependency at Rs. 1,200/- with application of a multiplier of 12 only. Even if the multiplicand is taken on the basis of Rs. 1,200/- per month, there appears no reason not to apply the multiplier of 17 in this case. In the opinion of this Court, it would be proper to apply a multiplier of 17 looking to the age of the victim. Hence, the assessment of pecuniary loss comes to Rs. 2,44,800/- (Rs. 1200 x 12 x 17) and retaining the amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards general damages as awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,69,800/-. After adjustment of the amount of Rs. 1,97,800/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are held entitled to a further amount of Rs. 72,000/- (Rs. 2,69,800 - Rs. 1,97,800). 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. 13. 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. 13. Accordingly and in view of the above, these appeals succeed and are partly allowed; the impugned award dated 19.02.1999 in Claim Case Nos. 172/1992 and 173/1992 is modified. In Claim Case No.172/1999 (CMA No.422/1999), the claimant-appellant shall be entitled towards compensation another amount of Rs. 45,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. In Claim Case No.173/1992 (CMA No.461/1999), the claimants-appellants shall be entitled towards compensation another amount of Rs. 72,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. 14. 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. *******