Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1280 (RAJ)

Balbir Kaur v. Himachal Road Transport Corp. Anr.

2014-06-30

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The misc. appeal for enhancement has been filed by the claimants, the legal heirs of the deceased Paramjeet Singh under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter called; "the Act") against the award dated 7.8.2001 passed by the M.A.C.T., Sri Karanpur in Claim Case No. 90/1997 whereby the claim application filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was partly allowed and they were granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000 on account of death of Shri Paramjeet Singh in a road accident. 2. Facts in brief are that husband of the appellant No. 1 late Shri Paramjeet Singh aged 25 years was going on a Maruta (Jugar) near the Chak 7 EEA on 20.6.1996 in the night at about 8 O'clock. It is alleged that a Bus No. HP 38/2454 owned by Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation being driven in a rash and negligent fashion by its driver Girdharilal collided with the Maruta. Paramjeet expired at the spot due to the injuries received in the accident. 3. The claimants filed a claim application as stated above under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was partly allowed holding the driver of the Roadways bus responsible for causing the accident by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The claim was partly allowed as against the claimed compensation of Rs. 25,25,000 and the claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 as compensation. The appellants have approached this Court by way of this appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded to them. 4. Mr. Vishal Singhal, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus as well as liability of the Himachal Road Transport Corporation to bear the burden of the award have not been challenged and the same have become final. He vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal did not assess the award appropriately on the following issues:- 1. No calculation was made by the Tribunal towards loss of income caused to the claimants by the death of Paramjeet Singh. 2. The evidence of the claimants regarding the income of the deceased being Rs. 2,500 per month was accepted but no consideration was made for rise in income by future prospects. 3. The distribution of compensation awarded i.e. Rs. No calculation was made by the Tribunal towards loss of income caused to the claimants by the death of Paramjeet Singh. 2. The evidence of the claimants regarding the income of the deceased being Rs. 2,500 per month was accepted but no consideration was made for rise in income by future prospects. 3. The distribution of compensation awarded i.e. Rs. 1 Lac to Veerpalkaur, widow of the Paramjeet Singh under the head of mental agony, Rs. 50,000 to Balveerkaur mother and Rs. 75,000 to the son Sandeep claimant No. 3 under the head of loss of love and affection is without any basis. 5. Learned Counsel, therefore, urged that proper criterion be applied and the compensation awarded to the appellants be enhanced after appropriate assessment. He further prayed for a proper distribution of the award. 6. Per contra Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Anil Bachhawat, learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent and urged that the learned Tribunal has already awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimants and no further enhancement is called for in the same. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award and the record. 8. From a bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the learned Tribunal did not assess the compensation awardable to the claimants by applying the relevant criterion in light of the law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases. No calculation was made assessing for the loss of income caused to the appellants claimants on account of death of Shri Paramjeet Singh though his income was accepted to be Rs. 2,500 per month. No consideration was made for rise in income by future prospects. The Tribunal without any basis or foundation jumped to a figure of Rs. 2,25,000 as compensation awardable to the claimants. The compensation awarded to the claimants was also distributed in absolutely arbitrary and perfunctory fashion. Thus, proper assessment of compensation has to be done in light of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. reported in [2013) ACC 907 (SC) , Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Thus, proper assessment of compensation has to be done in light of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. reported in [2013) ACC 907 (SC) , Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2185 and Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 . 1. Looking to the fact that the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident, 50% rise in the income has to be added in the monthly income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal. 2. Multiplier to be applied for calculating the loss of income would be 18. 3. The appellant No. 2 the widow of the deceased deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 under the head of loss of consortium. 4. A sum of Rs. 2,500 deserves to be awarded under the head of funeral expenses. 5. The mother of the deceased i.e. the appellant No. 1 deserves to be awarded to a sum of Rs. 20,000 under the head of loss of love and service. 6. The claimant No. 3 the son of the deceased deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000 towards loss of love and affection. 9. In view of what has been discussed above and looking to the age of the deceased at the time of the accident viz. 25 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. 2500 x12 Rs.30,000.00 50% Enhancement in annual income by future prospects Rs.15,000.00 Rs.45,000.00 l/3rd Deduction from enhanced income towards needs and personal expenditure of the deceased Rs.15,000.00 Rs.30,000.00 Multiplier to be applied @ 18 Rs.5,40,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs.2,500.00 Rs.5,42,500.00 Loss of consortium to wife Rs.25,000.00 Rs.5,67,500.00 Loss of love and affection to the son Rs.20,000.00 Rs.5,87,500.00 Loss of love and service to the mother Rs.20,000.00 Rs.6,07,500.00 Total compensation awardable Rs. 6,07,500 ______________ Round off Rs. 6,07,500 ______________ 10. The claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% on the total awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim. 11. The enhanced amount shall be distributed in the following proportions:- 1. 6,07,500 ______________ Round off Rs. 6,07,500 ______________ 10. The claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% on the total awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim. 11. The enhanced amount shall be distributed in the following proportions:- 1. 50% to the wife of the deceased, 2. 30% to the mother of the deceased, 3. 20% to the son of the deceased. 12. The share of the minor children (if any), shall be disbursed to their natural guardian i.e. mother till he attain majority. 13. In order to ascertain that the claimants are benefited to the maximum by the enhancement in the award, the following directions are given for 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 seek modification by filing an application to release the amount from the fixed deposits. 14. 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 amount finally awarded by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.T., Srikaranpur is modified and the appellants are held entitled to enhanced compensation as indicated above. Record be sent back forthwith. No costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******