Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 638 (RAJ)

R. S. R. T. C. v. Pusha Ram

2013-04-01

ALOK SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter Rs. the Act') has been filed against the judgment dated 1-8-2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Tack)No. 2 Sikar (hereinafter Rs. the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 271/2005 awarding to claimants therein, now respondents before this court (hereinafter Rs. the claimants') the compensation of Rs. 5,65,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of application for claim on account of death of one Lal Chand till the date of payment. 2. The facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal on 6-10-2003 against the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter 'the RSRTC') the appellant owner of the bus and its driver Rewant Singh claiming compensation for an amount of Rs. 30,45,000/- on account of loss suffered due to the death of Lal Chand occasioned in an accident on 25-8-2003. It was alleged in the claim petition that at the time of accident the deceased Lal Chand was going towards the factory where he worked when the bus of RSRTC with registration No. RJ-01/P-4067 driven rashly and negligently hit the deceased resulting in his death on the spot. It was stated in the claim petition that the deceased was a carpenter at the relevant time with an income of Rs. 4500/- per month and that the claimants were dependent on the deceased for their day to day sustenance. Reply to the claim petition was filed by the RSRTC as also the Driver of the bus denying the averments of the claim petition. It was submitted that the accident was occasioned not only on account of the fault of the driver of the offending vehicle but the deceased was also negligent. Therefore there was contributory negligence of the deceased which resulted in the accident. It was submitted that the accident was occasioned not only on account of the fault of the driver of the offending vehicle but the deceased was also negligent. Therefore there was contributory negligence of the deceased which resulted in the accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed three issues:- 1- D;k fnukad 25 vxLr] 2003 dks lk;a 5 cts ds yxHkx xzke rkM+kl ftyk ukxkSj ds ikl foi{kh la[;k jsoar flag }kjk okgu cl RJ-01-P-4087 dks mrkoysiu@ykijokgh ls pyus ds dkj.k gqbZ nq?kZVuk ds ifj.kkeLo:i yky pan ds pksVsa o mldh e`R;q gks x;h\ &izkFkhZx.k 2- D;k vkosndxu vkosnu i= ds [kaM 24 o 25 esa crk;s vuqlkj 30]45]000&@ :0 dh {krhiw.kZ jk'kh foi{kh la[;k 1 yxk;r 3 ls izkIr dj ldrs gSa\ &izkFkhZx.k 3- D;k foi{kh jkT; jksMost us vius tokc esa mBkbZ xbZ vkifRr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij izfrdj vnk;xh ds fy;s mRrjnk;h ugha gSA &vizkFkhZ 3. On behalf of the claimants three witnesses, the father of the deceased, the employer of the deceased and the person who witnessed the accident and lodged the FIR were examined. On behalf of appellant RSRTC only the driver of the bus was the sole witness in defence. The learned Tribunal on consideration of the evidence before it, vide award dated 1-8-2005 decided all issues in favour of the claimants and against the RSRTC and driver of the offending vehicle and awarded Rs. 5,65,000/- along with interest 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition i.e. on 6-10-2003 till the date of payment. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the award dated 1-8-2005 passed by the learned Tribunal is excessive. It is submitted that not only there was any evidence of probative worth with regard to income of the deceased as there was no documentary proof with regard thereto but also only an ⅓ amount out of the amount of income of deceased was deducted, for arriving at the dependency of the claimants in spite of the fact that the deceased was a bachelor and 1/2 amount of the income ought to have been deducted. Learned counsel submits that the award of Rs. 5,65,000/- with interest tantamounted to a windfall for the claimants beyond the mandate of Section 168 of the Act, which only provides for determination of just compensation to the claimants for the death/ injury in a motor accident. Learned counsel submits that the award of Rs. 5,65,000/- with interest tantamounted to a windfall for the claimants beyond the mandate of Section 168 of the Act, which only provides for determination of just compensation to the claimants for the death/ injury in a motor accident. No other ground has been urged by the counsel for the appellant. 5. Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that aside of the manner of arriving at the amount of compensation of Rs. 5,65,000/- plus interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum thereon, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is a just and fair award to the legal heirs/ dependents of a young boy who was the sole bread winner in the family. Counsel submits that the deceased aside of supporting his parents was also supporting his two younger minor brothers, and consequently the learned Tribunal taking into account the meager income of the deceased was justified in not deducting 1/2 the income as expenses of the deceased before computing the dependency of the claimants and determining compensation payable to them. Counsel submits that this court should take into consideration the frugal nature of expenses in poor households living at the minimum sustenance levels and it is inconceivable that the deceased in the context of his cultural and socioeconomic status would have been expanded fifty percent of his income on his own upkeep with four other dependents in the household. It is submitted that aside of the issue of non-deduction of 1/2 amount out of meager income of deceased as his personal expenses, for arriving at the amount of compensation the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased who as carpenter, a skilled artisan, would have only had ascending incomes from year to year in a rapidly expanding housing sector. He submitted that the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Tribunals ought to have take into consideration the future prospects of the deceased with regard to potential income enhancement, and therefore in the facts of the instant case it cannot be argued that the award passed without reckoning of the future prospects of the deceased entailed a windfall to the claimants or was excessive. Consequently, counsel for the claimants submitted that no interference with the award dated 1-8-2005 is called for and appeal be dismissed. Consequently, counsel for the claimants submitted that no interference with the award dated 1-8-2005 is called for and appeal be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that in the facts of the case no interference with the award dated 1-8-2005 in the appeal is called for. No doubt that in spite of the deceased being a bachelor only ⅓ amount of his income has been deducted by the Tribunal as expenses on the upkeep of the deceased but this by itself does not render the compensation excessive. The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] holding that ordinarily half the income of bachelors dying in a motor accident, be deducted as a thumb rule from their income on account of their upkeep before computing the dependency of the claimants, has been thereafter diluted by a subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2012) 6 SCC 421 ] : 2012 (3) T.A.C. 1 holding that in the cases where the deceased is a low wage employeeas in the present caseit need not invariably be so. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court says in C. Ronald v. Union Territory of Andaman & Ncobar Islands [ (2011) 12 SCC 428 ] that its judgment cannot be read as statute or Euclid's theorems. Be that as it may, yet in the present case it is equally apparent that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects of the income enhancement of the deceased by 30% over his proved income as also mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2012) 6 SCC 421 ] : 2012 (3) T.A.C. 1 . Further, aside of the deceased looking after and supporting his parents, he was also supporting his younger brothers, who at the time of accident were minors. This court also cannot overlook the economic constraints of the deceased with meager income and his socioeconomic setting to exclude the possibility of the deceased having very limited personal expenses with the obligations of looking after his parents and younger minor brothers. This court also cannot overlook the economic constraints of the deceased with meager income and his socioeconomic setting to exclude the possibility of the deceased having very limited personal expenses with the obligations of looking after his parents and younger minor brothers. And even if the dependency of the claimants were to be taken to have been assessed on the higher side with less deduction on account of personal expenses than warranted by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court, the non-applying of the principle of future prospects and enhanced future income of the deceased while determining the income of the deceased and with it the dependency of the claimants in reference thereto would entail an approximate equalisation in the arithmetic of determining the just compensation to which the claimants were entitled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Nagappa Mahadev Doddaamani v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [ (1998) 9 SCC 271 ] : 2012 (3) T.A.C. 1 , that where the overall compensation awarded is neither palpably arbitrary nor excessive nor unjust, the High Courts in the exercise of their appellate power under Section 173 of the Act should not interfere with awards passed by the Claims Tribunals. On facts on record, no such a situation obtains in the case at hand. Consequently, I am of the considered view that on the facts on record, the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal is just compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with which no interference is called for. Therefore there is no ground to interfere with award dated 1-8-2005 passed by the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******