Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 710 (RAJ)

Manna v. R. S. R. T. C.

2012-03-21

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 26th April, 1993 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur (herein after to be referred in short as 'Tribunal') decreed an amount of Rs.96,400/- in favour of the appellants-claimants and against the respondents to be paid jointly and severally. Aggrieved and totally dissatisfied with the amount under the award, the appellants have beseeched to enhance the quantum of compensation. 2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the case, are that on 15th September, 1989 deceased Mst. Chand w/o Munna was coming by a Roadways bus bearing registration no.RNP-1820, from Shahpura to Jaipur. When the bus reached near Kukas, Mst. Chand had a nauseatic feeling. She asked the driver to stop the bus, but the driver did not pay any attention to her request. When she could not control her feelings, she brought out her head through the window of the bus for vomiting. Suddenly, one Truck bearing registration No.PCF-9455 emerged from opposite direction and hit her head, which resulted into her death. It is alleged that the death of Mst. Chand was caused due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of Roadways bus and the Truck. Dependents of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after completion of trial, passed the decree as indicated hereinabove. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for respondent No.5 and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 4. None is present for rest of the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants concentrated his argument mainly on the question of loss of dependency. He canvassed that the Tribunal considered only Rs.2500/- to be the monthly income of the deceased-Mst. Chand, whereas apart from earning wages out of labour, she was performing the house-hold activities also. The income, so considered by the Tribunal for reckoning loss of dependency is quite meagre. Not only that, the Tribunal has also applied different multipliers in the case of daughters of the deceased and her sons. In the case of daughters, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 5, whereas in the case of sons, the multiplier of 15 was applied. Law does not permit such a distinction to be made for the application of multiplier in claim petition. In the case of daughters, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 5, whereas in the case of sons, the multiplier of 15 was applied. Law does not permit such a distinction to be made for the application of multiplier in claim petition. Thus, the amount of compensation, in entirety, is exiguous, in the facts and circumstances of the case, which needs to be enhanced and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Co. defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and proper. 7. Learned counsel further canvassed that even if the proper multiplier, as suggested by the Apex Court from time to time in different judgments, is applied and the prevailing minimum wages at the relevant point of time are taken into consideration, then also the amount does not travel beyond the amount, which has been awarded by the Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned award was just and proper, which did not warrant any intervention. 8. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment, it is revealed that the minimum wages on the date of accident were only Rs.40/- per day, in case of a skilled labour. Though, the income of the deceased has not been proved by the claimants, yet if the minimum wages paid to a skilled labour is considered to be the income of the deceased and a proper multiplier as suggested by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.3483 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP [C] No.8648 of 2007 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC)) is applied then the loss of dependency can be computed as Under: 510 X 12 X 14 = Rs.85,680/- 9. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.3483 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP [C] No.8648 of 2007 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC)) is applied then the loss of dependency can be computed as Under: 510 X 12 X 14 = Rs.85,680/- 9. In the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (Supra), the Apex Court has suggested that if the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd); where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-fourth (1/4th) and if the number of dependent family members exceeds six (6) then the deduction should be one-fifth(1/5th) towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. In the instant case, the number of dependent family members is found to be six, as one son Seetam of the deceased was major on the date of accident. If 1/4th amount is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the amount of loss of dependency comes as under: Rs.85,680 – 21,420/- = Rs.64,260/- 10. Since Mst. Chand left behind children varying from age of 9 years to 17 years. I feel just and proper to award Rs.5,000/- for each child towards love and affection. Apart this, Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses can also be justifiably awarded. Thus, the entire amount of compensation on all heads come to Rs.1,01,260/- (Rs. One lac one thousand two hundred sixty only). 11. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the following extent: “The appellants-claimants are held entitled to claim Rs.1,01,260/- in stead of Rs.96,400/- from the respondents-non-claimants jointly and severally. They are also entitled to claim the same rate of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till the enhanced amount is actually realized.” 12. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. 13. The above modification, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.