Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 824 (RAJ)

Aruna Ben v. Narayan Gauda

2013-04-27

ARUN BHANSALI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand ('the Tribunal') by judgment and award dated 06.10.2001, whereby, the claimants were awarded compensation of Rs. 2,27,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation i.e. 11.10.1994. 2. Undisputed facts which have been found by the Tribunal and are not in question are that deceased Naresh Bhai, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 and 3 was driving a car bearing registration No.GRQ-111 from Ahmedabad to Ajmer alongwith four other persons, when a luxury bus driven by respondent No.1 collided with the car, resulting in instantaneous death of Naresh Bhai and injuries to other passengers in the car. 3. The Tribunal found that driver of the luxury bus was driving the bus rashly and negligently, the driver was working in the employment of respondent No.2 T.R.C. Murti and that the Insurance Company was liable for making payment of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. While dealing with the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants-appellants, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that no evidence was produced regarding the income of the deceased. It was proved that the deceased was a driver and as per postmortem report his age was 33 years and against the claim of salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month and Rs. 1,500/- towards commission per month and annual income of Rs. 25,000/- from agricultural operations, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs. 1,500/- per month and after deducting ⅓rd towards personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 17 awarded a sum of Rs. 2,04,000/- towards loss of income, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love, affection and consortium to the appellants and Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses besides Rs. 5,000/- as costs and a total sum of Rs. 2,27,000/- alongwith interest as noticed hereinbefore. 5. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded is highly inadequate and cannot be termed as just compensation and consequently the same deserves to be enhanced adequately. 6. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses besides Rs. 5,000/- as costs and a total sum of Rs. 2,27,000/- alongwith interest as noticed hereinbefore. 5. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded is highly inadequate and cannot be termed as just compensation and consequently the same deserves to be enhanced adequately. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that in view of the fact that no documentary evidence was produced by the claimants, the sum awarded is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 8. It would be relevant to notice that AW-2 Smt. Aruna Ben was not cross-examined on the aspect of the income of deceased. While granting compensation under Section 168 of the Act what is required to be determined is just and reasonable compensation, which in turn, can only be examined from material on record, but no hard and fast rule can be laid down. 9. It is apparent that besides the statement of Smt. Aruna Ben, there is no material available on record and her statement has remained un-controverted. The material on record may not result in determination of actual income of the deceased, but it cannot be ruled out that the deceased has source of income for maintaining his family consisting of wife and two children by working as a driver which apparently are good attending circumstances to determine reasonable compensation apart from the fact that the deceased was 33 years of age and his income would not have remained frozen for all time to come, but would have been reasonably enhanced. 10. In the light of above discussion, for arriving at a just compensation, the income can be estimated even in absence of documentary evidence and even as per the Schedule under Section 163A of the Act with regard to non-earning members, from whom, Rs. 15,000/- per annum has been considered to be a financial dependency of the family, taking into consideration over all conspectus of the material on record and other ancillary aspect, the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal is inadequate and, therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 15,000/- per annum has been considered to be a financial dependency of the family, taking into consideration over all conspectus of the material on record and other ancillary aspect, the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal is inadequate and, therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 2,500/- per month and after deducting ⅓rd towards the personal expenses, the dependency of the family comes to Rs. 1,667/- per month and, looking to the age of the deceased, multiplier of 16 will be appropriate to be adopted in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the compensation towards loss of income qua dependency of the family is accordingly determined at Rs. 3,20,000/-. As regards compensation towards love, affection and consortium, funeral expenses and cost of the application, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is maintained. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 06.10.2001 passed by the Tribunal is modified and in view of the findings arrived at by this Court hereinbefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,43,000/- instead of Rs. 2,27,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. On the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,16,000/-, the claimants would also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation i.e. 11.10.1994 till actual payment. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company would deposit the amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. No costs.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******