Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 777 (RAJ)

Krishna Devi v. Sunil

2012-03-28

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
BHAGWATI, J.—Dissatisfied with the amount under the award, the claimants Smt. Krishna Devi and others have beseeched to enhance the quantum of compensation from Rs. 3,10,000/- to any just and appropriate amount. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has concentrated his arguments only on the point of loss of dependency and contended that the Tribunal ought to have reduced 1/4th from the income of the deceased in consideration to expenses incurred to maintain the deceased Sajjan Kumar himself had he been alive 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 5, 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. He further canvassed that the deceased was 25 ½ years of age at the time of accident. Second schedule appended to the M.V. Act envisages the multiplier of 18 if the victim falls within the age bracket of 25 to 30 years. Similarly in the case of Sarla Verma also, the Apex Court has suggested the multiplier of 18 for the victims falling in the age group of 25 to 30 years, whereas the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 only. Hence, the impugned award be modified and amount be enhanced accordingly. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and apt. 4. Hence, the impugned award be modified and amount be enhanced accordingly. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and apt. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned award, it is noticed that the learned Tribunal in the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to income of the deceased, assessed his income to be Rs. 70/- per day. 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 five in number, the learned Tribunal is found to have committed error while deducting 1/3rd of the personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, after deducting 1/4th of the personal expenses of the deceased, the quantum of compensation is recomputed as under:- Monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 70 X 30 = Rs. 2100 and after deducting 1/4th amount, the net annual dependency comes to Rs. 2100 – 525 = Rs. 1575 X 12 = Rs. 18,900 5. After applying the multiplier of 18, as envisaged in Second Schedule of the MV Act for the victims falling in the age bracket of 25-30 years, the amount comes to Rs. 18,900 X 18 = Rs. 3,40,200/-. 6. After adding Rs. 3,40,200/- to the amount of Rs. 22,400/- awarded under the head of love, affection and consortium to claimants and Rs. 2,000/- awarded under the head of funeral expenses, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,64,600/-. Thus, the claimants appellants are held entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 3,64,600/- instead of Rs. 3,10,000/-. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants appellants is partly allowed. They are held entitled to claim Rs.3,64,600/- instead of Rs.3,10,000/- 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. 8. The impugned award stands modified, as indicated here-in-above.