Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2282 (RAJ)

Gopi Lal v. Shankar Singh

2013-12-16

ARUN BHANSALI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against judgment and award dated 27.5.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur ('the Tribunal'), whereby, for the death of one Deepchand, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 55,750/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 19.1.1990 to 24.1.2005 and @ 6% per annum from 25.1.2005 till the payment. 2. The Tribunal while considering quantum of compensation to be awarded noticed that wife of the deceased had contracted second marriage and was deleted as party from the application and the mother of the deceased also died during pendency of the application and she was also deleted as party and, consequently, it was only the father of the deceased, who remained the claimant before the Tribunal. Based on the oral evidence led by the sole-claimant Gopi Lal, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- per month and taking into consideration future prospects enhanced the same at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and, thereafter deducted ¾ of the amount on account of the fact that the father alone was the claimant and applying multiplier of 13 based on age of the father i.e. 50 years, awarded Rs. 48,750/- on account of loss of income and, thereafter adding Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2,0001- towards funeral expenses and, as such, awarded a total sum of Rs. 55,750/-. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has awarded wholly inadequate compensation. It was submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side and has made deduction in excess of the settled position and has applied multiplier based on the age of the father instead the age of the deceased and, therefore, on all the three aspects of the compensation, the same deserves to be enhanced. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the compensation awarded is adequate, inasmuch, as the claimant has failed to lead any evidence in support of income of the deceased. Further, the deceased had two more brothers and, therefore, the dependency at 1/4 of the income of deceased is also justified. It was further submitted that the multiplier adopted based on the age of the father is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. 6. Further, the deceased had two more brothers and, therefore, the dependency at 1/4 of the income of deceased is also justified. It was further submitted that the multiplier adopted based on the age of the father is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. 6. From the oral evidence, which was recorded by the claimant-Gopi Lal, he claimed that the deceased was involved in brokerage of plots of land and used to grow seasonal vegetables. It was claimed that he used to earn Rs. 1,000/- per month from growing the seasonal vegetables and Rs. 2,000/- per month from the sale of plots. The Tribunal on account of the fact that one more application was filed by the same parties with different sets of averments regarding the income of the deceased, wherein, they were no reference to any income from sale and purchase of plots except the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- from growing the seasonal vegetables assessed the income at Rs. 1,000/- only and enhanced the same to Rs. 15,000/- per annum. 7. The assessment by the Tribunal, though there was no material cross-examination of the witness, does not appear to be unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case, however the deduction at ¾ of the compensation is apparently excessive and cannot be supported by any principle of law. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Venna & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that in case of an unmarried person, where the claimants are parents, 1/2 of the income can be deducted towards personal expenses. Though, in the present case, at the time of death, the said Deepchand was married to Pratapi and besides his father Gopi Lal, his mother were also alive, however, at the time of award of compensation, as the wife of the deceased got her name deleted from the array of parties, the case at best be considered at par with that of an unmarried person and, therefore, at the most the Tribunal could have deducted 50% of the amount towards personal expenses. 9. 9. So far as the application for multiplier based on the age of the father is concerned, the issue in this regard is fairly well settled that in case the claimants are higher in age from the age of the deceased, the multiplier of persons for higher in age has to be employed. Reference in this regard may be made to a three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 . 10. So far as the award of amount towards loss on account of untimely death of son is concerned, the award of Rs. 5,000/- to the father is inadequate and the same is, therefore, enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-. 11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that appellant-claimant would be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 58,750/- alongwith interest @ 7% from the date of filing of application i.e. 19.1.1990 till the date of actual payment. The amount of compensation be paid to the claimant within a period of two months. No costs. *******