Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 758 (RAJ)

Rekha Sharma v. Birdi Chand

2012-03-27

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
BHAGWATI, J.—Since both these appeals arise out of one judgment and award dated 31.3.2006 rendered by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts of the case, in nub, are that on 11.7.2004 at about 1.30 AM when one Dumper bearing registration no. RJ 18-G-3197 reached near Keero Ki Dhani, a bus of RSRTC bearing registration no. RJ 08-P-0566, which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the dumper, as a result of which Sanjay Sharma and other passengers sitting inside the bus got injured and Sanjay Sharma succumbed to injuries. 3. The claimants filed a claim pettion before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribuna vide its judgment and award dated 31.3.2006 decreed an amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- in favour of claimants and against the non claimants-respondents. 4. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid amount of compensation, the claimants have filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation, whereas the Rajasthan State Road Transport corporation has filed the appeal challenging the quantum of compensation. SBCMA No. 3265/2006 5. Learned counsel for the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation canvassed that the learned Tribunal committed error while assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,15,250/- per annum, whereas there was no basis for assessing the said income of the deceased. Hence the impugned award be modified and the quantum of compensation be reduced substantially. 6. E Contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants defended the impugned award and stated that the income of the deceased was determined on the basis of income tax returns. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award, it is noticed that the learned Tribunal found the income tax returns of the deceased (Ex.-21 and 22) proved and having analyzed the matter in detail awarded Rs. 17,25,000/- to be the quantum of compensation. Hence, the argument put forth by learned counsel appearing for the RSRTC does not sustain and the same deserves to be outrightly rejected. SBCMA No. 2671/2006 8. Dissatisfied with the amount under the award, the claimants Smt. Rekha Sharma and others have beseeched to enhance the quantum of compensation from Rs 17,50,000/- to any just and appropriate amount. 9. Hence, the argument put forth by learned counsel appearing for the RSRTC does not sustain and the same deserves to be outrightly rejected. SBCMA No. 2671/2006 8. Dissatisfied with the amount under the award, the claimants Smt. Rekha Sharma and others have beseeched to enhance the quantum of compensation from Rs 17,50,000/- to any just and appropriate amount. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has concentrated his arguments only on one point with regard to loss of dependency and contended that the Tribunal ought to have reduced 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased with a view to reckon the loss of dependency. Learned counsel took me through the verdict of Apex Court delivered 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)) and contended that the Apex Court having discussed the cases of Trilok Chandra = RLW 1996(2) SC 130, Fakeerappa and others, observed that where the deceased was married, the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3 where the number of dependent family members is 2-3, it should be 1/4, where the dependent family members is 4-6 and 1/5 where the number of dependent family members exceed six. In the instant case, the number of dependent family members is 4, hence, 1/4th amount should be deducted from the income of the deceased to reckon the loss of dependency. The Tribunal instead of 1/4th amount deducted 1/3rd amount from the income of the deceased, hence, the amount towards loss of dependency needs to be enhanced. 10. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the learned Tribunal is found to have committed error in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased whereas in view of the judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) and looking to the number of the dependents, which are four in number, the deduction should be 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, hence, the quantum of compensation is recomputed thus:- 1,75,250 X 1/4th = Rs. 43,812. The net dependency comes to Rs. 1,75,250 – Rs. 43,812 = Rs. 1,31,438/-. 11. 43,812. The net dependency comes to Rs. 1,75,250 – Rs. 43,812 = Rs. 1,31,438/-. 11. After applying the multiplier of 15, as envisaged in Second Schedule of the MV Act for the victims falling within the age bracket of 40-45 years, and which has rightly been applied by the learned Tribunal, the amount comes to Rs. 1,31,438 X 15 = Rs. 19,71,570/-. 12. After adding Rs. 10,000/- awarded under the head of consortium to claimant no.1; Rs. 10,000/- awarded under the head of love and affection (Rs. 5,000/- to claimants no. 2 and 3); and Rs. 5,000/- awarded under the head of funeral expenses, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 19,96,570/-. Thus, the claimants appellants are held entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 19,96,570/- instead of Rs. 17,50,000/-. 13. The upshot of both the appeals is that the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3265/2006 filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against Smt. Rekha Sharma and others stands dismissed and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2671/2006 filed by Smt. Rekha Sharma and other against Birdi Chand and others is partly allowed. 14. The claimants appellants Smt. Rekha Sharma and others are held entitled to claim Rs. 19,96,570/- instead of Rs. 17,50,000/- from the non claimants-respondents jointly and severally. They are also held entitled to claim interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing the claim petition till the amount is actually realized. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. The impugned award in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2671/2006 stands modified, as indicated here-in-above. 15. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.