Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 778 (RAJ)

Bhom Singh v. Panchu @ Pritam Singh

2012-03-28

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
BHAGWATI, J.—Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount under the award, the appellants-claimants have beseeched to enhance the quantum of compensation. 2. Background facts of the case, in nutshell, are that on 2nd May, 2007, the deceased Karan Singh along with Panchu Singh and Ratan Singh were going from Atotmand to Ganeshpura by motor-cycle. At about 10 p.m., no sooner did they reach near kiln at Atotmand Road, one truck bearing Registration No. RJ-19-RA-2584, being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, suddenly emerged from the opposite direction at a fast speed and hit the motor-cycle, resulting into the death of Karan Singh on the spot and simple and grievous injuries to pillion riders Panchu Singh and Ratan Singh. The claimants of the deceased Karan Singh filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which after completion of inquiry decreed an amount of Rs. 3,78,000/- in favour of the appellants-claimants and against the respondents. Aggrieved with the said amount, the appellants have implored to enhance the same. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants took me through the award and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. delivered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3483 (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 7, but the Tribunal reduced ¼ of income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses, whereas the reduction ought to have been 1/5. Hence, the loss of dependency may be re-computed and the amount of compensation be enhanced and the award be modified, accordingly. 4. In the instant case, the number of dependent family members is 7, but the Tribunal reduced ¼ of income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses, whereas the reduction ought to have been 1/5. Hence, the loss of dependency may be re-computed and the amount of compensation be enhanced and the award be modified, accordingly. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has not opposed to it, as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is based totally on law point. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the II Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, it is revealed that the victim was 32 years of age at the time of accident and the legislature has suggested the multiplier of 17 for reckoning the loss of dependency. There is no dispute with regard to the income of the deceased, hence, the loss of dependency is recomputed thus:- Rs. 36,000 – Rs.7,200/- (1/5 of the annual income of the deceased) = Rs.28,800/- Rs.28,800/- x 17 = Rs. 4,89,600/- 7. Hence, the loss of dependency in the instant appeal comes to Rs. 4,89,600/- instead of Rs. 4,59,000/-. 6. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards other heads i.e. Rs. 45,000/-, in all, remains unchanged. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 5,34,600/-. After deducting 25% of the award amount towards contributory negligence, the net award amount is thus, reckoned as Rs. 4,00,950/-. 7. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants-claimants are held entitled to claim Rs. 4,00,950/- instead of Rs. 3,78,000/- from the respondents/non-claimants. They are also held entitled to claim the 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. 9. The appeal stands disposed of, accordingly.