Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1267 (RAJ)

Virat Swaroop v. R. S. R. T. C. Anr.

2014-06-23

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant enhancement appeal has been preferred by the appellants claimants against the judgment and award dated 14.6.2000 passed by the learned judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Jodhpur in M.A.C. No. 324/1996 whereby the claim application filed by the claimants was partly allowed as against the claim of Rs. 24,10,000 they were granted Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation upon the death of their son Vikas Sharma in a road accident which occurred on 22.6.1996. 2. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding the manner in which the accident occurred, the entitlement of the appellant claimants to receive compensation and the liability of the respondents to shoulder the responsibility of the award are not in dispute. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on these issues have become final and need not be adverted to and deliberated upon. The appellants' son Vikas Sharma aged 19 years used to work as salesman and was earning Rs. 2000-2500 per month as per the claim. He was going with his friend on his scooter on 22.6.1996 at 12 O'clock. At the Rai Ka Bagh Railway Fly Over, a Bus No. RNP-1382 owned by the respondent No. 1 driven by the respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent fashion dashed against the scooter from behind. The claimant's son Vikas expired at the spot. 3. The claimants being the parents of the deceased filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming total compensation of Rs. 24,10,000. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim application holding the Corporation's driver rash and negligent and responsible for the accident awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000 to the claimants appellants. Hence this appeal. 4. Mr. M.R. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal committed grave error in assessing the compensation awardable to the claimants. He did not challenge the finding of the Tribunal regarding the income of the deceased and the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 800 per month but submits that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the aspect of rise in income by future prospects while assessing the loss of income. He did not challenge the finding of the Tribunal regarding the income of the deceased and the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 800 per month but submits that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the aspect of rise in income by future prospects while assessing the loss of income. He further submitted that the multiplier of 13 applied by the Tribunal was also wrong as the deceased was 19 years of age and the appropriate multiplier applicable would be 18 in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 . He urged that the sum of Rs. 5,000 each awarded to the appellants under the head of loss of service is unjustly low. Thus, he urged that appropriate enhancement be directed in the appeal keeping in view these submissions. 5. Mr. Goswami for Mr. Anil Bachhawat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation is not in a position to dispute that the learned Tribunal did not consider rise in income by future prospects while assessing the compensation. He, however, contended that no enhancement is called for under other heads. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment and the record. From a bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it is manifest that the Tribunal fell in error while assessing compensation awardable to the claimants. The Tribunal held the dependency of the claimants to be Rs. 800 per month. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs. 1,600 whereby the dependency o the claimants would work out at Rs. 800 per month after making a deduction o 50% towards personal needs and expenses of the deceased. Addition to income by future prospects is a mandatory criterion and has to be taken into account calculating compensation under the head of loss of income. Thus, applying the principles enunciated in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , and as the age of the deceased was 19 years, 50% rise in income by future prospects deserves to be added to the income of the deceased for the purposes of calculating the loss of income caused to the claimants. 7. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , and as the age of the deceased was 19 years, 50% rise in income by future prospects deserves to be added to the income of the deceased for the purposes of calculating the loss of income caused to the claimants. 7. The appropriate multiplier to be applied would be governed by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 . As the deceased was 19 years of age at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be 18 and not 13 as applied by the learned Tribunal. 8. The amount of Rs. 5,000 awarded to each of the claimants under the head of loss of love and service is unjustly low and deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 20,000 each. In view of what has been discussed above and looking to the age of the deceased at the time of the accident i.e. 19 years, the following computation deserves to be approved for deciding the quantum of enhanced compensation awardable to the appellants Total Annual income of the deceased Rs. 1600 x 12 Rs.19,200.00 50% Enhancement of annual income by future prospects Rs. 19,200 + Rs . 9,600 Rs.28,800.00 50% Deduction from enhanced income towards needs and personal expenditure of the deceased (bachelor) Rs. 28,800 - (50% of Rs. 28,800) = Rs. 14,400 Rs. 14,400 Multiplier of net income @ 18 x Rs. 14,400 Rs.259,200.00 Funeral expenses Rs.2,000.00 Rs.261,200.00 Loss of love and affection and service to the parents Rs. 20,000 each i.e. Rs. 40,000 in all Rs. 3,01200 ______________ Total compensation awardable Rs. 3,01,200 ______________ 9. The claimants shall be entitled to an interest at the rate of 7.5% on the total awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim. 10. In order to ascertain that the claimants are benefited to the maximum by the enhancement in the award. The following directions are given for the disbursal of the awarded amount:- (1) 20% of the enhanced amount shall be paid to the claimants in cash. (2) The remaining 80% shall be deposited in fixed deposits in any nationalised bank with a lock in period of 5 years by applying the best available fixed deposit term plan. The following directions are given for the disbursal of the awarded amount:- (1) 20% of the enhanced amount shall be paid to the claimants in cash. (2) The remaining 80% shall be deposited in fixed deposits in any nationalised bank with a lock in period of 5 years by applying the best available fixed deposit term plan. The interest upon the fixed deposit shall be disbursed to the claimants periodically. The banker shall be instructed not to issue any loan against the fixed deposits. (3) If in any emergent condition the claimants require the modification of the said direction, they shall be at liberty to file a writ petition before this Court for the release of the amount from the fixed deposits. 11. Any amount already paid by the Insurance Company under Section 140 and/or proviso to Section 173 or any other amount, shall be adjusted towards the mount finally awarded by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award passed by lie learned Judge, M.A.C.T.-I, Jodhpur is modified and the appellants are held entitled to enhanced compensation as indicated above. Record be sent back forthwith.No costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******