Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1321 (RAJ)

Manju Devi v. Balraj Singh

2014-07-03

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant enhancement appeal has been filed on .behalf of the claimant-appellants challenging the judgment cum award dated 11.1.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in M.A.C. Case No. 293/1997, whereby, the claim application was partly allowed and the claimant-appellants were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,200 upon he death of Shri Kishan Lal. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 11.6.1997, the deceased Kishan Lal aged 27 years was driving a truck bearing Registration No. RJ-06-G-149 and was proceeding towards Ajmer after loading stone slabs therein. A truck bearing Registration No. HR-46-4934 came from the opposite direction. The driver of the said truck namely Jagmal Singh allegedly drove the truck in a rash and negligent fashion at an excessive high speed and collided with the truck driven by Kishan Lal near the railway crossing. Kishan Lal died on the spot in the accident. 3. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the claimant-appellants being the legal heirs of the deceased Kishan Lal in the [court of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000. The learned Tribunal accepted the claim petition in part and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,200 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereupon to the claimants. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded to them by the learned Tribunal. 4. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding the accident having occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the other trucks driver, the entitlement of the claimants to receive compensation and the liability of the non-claimants to satisfy the award have not been challenged by any of them and have thus become final. The only question which now remains to be considered is as to whether the claimants appellants are entitled to enhancement in the award. 5. Learned Counsel for the claimant-appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error in assessing the compensation awardable to the claimants. It was urged that the income tax returns of the deceased were submitted in evidence before the learned Tribunal. Oral evidence was also led to the effect that the deceased was earning in excess of Rs. 5. Learned Counsel for the claimant-appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error in assessing the compensation awardable to the claimants. It was urged that the income tax returns of the deceased were submitted in evidence before the learned Tribunal. Oral evidence was also led to the effect that the deceased was earning in excess of Rs. 15,000 per month from different sources. The learned Tribunal without any justification discarded the evidence led by the claimants and held the income of the deceased to be a paltry sum of Rs. 2,000 per month. Learned Counsel submitted that the deceased owned the truck in question. This could not have been possible unless his earning was significant. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal did not take into account the rise in income of the deceased by future prospects whilst calculating the compensation. The deduction of nearly half made towards personal needs and expenditure is also unjustified in view of the fact that the claimants are four in number. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded paltry amounts of Rs. 15,000 to the wife of the deceased towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000 (7 5,000 each) to the two children of the deceased towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 5,000 to the mother of the deceased towards loss of love and service which deserve significant increase. Learned Counsel thus prayed that the enhancement deserves to be made in the compensation keeping in view the apparent errors committed by the Tribunal while assessing compensation. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the claimant-appellants. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment cum award as well as the record. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal unjustly discarded the evidence of the claimants regarding the income of the deceased and held his income to be a meager Rs. 2,000 per month without any reason. Though, it is true that the oral evidence of the claimants on the aspect of the victim's income is slightly vacillating, but, looking to the family background from which the deceased hailed, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased was definitely earning much more than the paltry sum of Rs. 2,000 per month as held by the learned Tribunal. 2,000 per month as held by the learned Tribunal. The deceased was maintaining his own truck which is admitted from the record. The accident happened with the deceased's own truck. He himself used to drive the truck and earned his livelihood thereby. The income tax returns which were submitted after the death of the deceased projected his annual income to be Rs. 48,000. In view of the over whelming material available on record, the learned Tribunal erred in holding the income of the deceased to be only Rs. 2,000 per month. Looking to the material and circumstances available on record and striking a balance from the evidence of the claimants, for the purpose of assessing the claim, the income of the deceased is held to be Rs. 4,000 instead of Rs. 2,000 per month as concluded by the learned Tribunal. 9. In view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2185 and as the claimants are four in number, the deduction towards personal needs and expenditure would be ¼"' from the income of the deceased instead of nearly half as done by the learned Tribunal. Applying the principles enunciated in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 and looking to the fact that the deceased was 27 years of age and was self employed, addition of 50% in his annual income by future prospects has to be made for calculating compensation. In view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 SC 3104 and as the deceased was between 26-30 years of age at the time of his death, the appropriate multiplier to be applied would be 17. The amount of Rs. 15,000 awarded to the wife of the deceased towards loss of consortium is also inappropriate and deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 25,000 Likewise, the amount of Rs. 5,000 each awarded to the two children of the deceased and amount of Rs. 5,000 awarded to the mother of the deceased towards loss of love and service also deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 15,000 each. 10. 25,000 Likewise, the amount of Rs. 5,000 each awarded to the two children of the deceased and amount of Rs. 5,000 awarded to the mother of the deceased towards loss of love and service also deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 15,000 each. 10. Thus, enhancement deserves to be directed in the compensation awarded to the appellants keeping in view the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgments in the cases of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2185 , Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 . In view of what has been discussed above, the following computation table deserves to be approved for assessing the quantum of enhanced compensation awardable to the claimants appellants:- Annual income of the deceased Rs. 4000x12 Rs.48,000.00 50% Enhancement in annual income by future prospects Rs.24,000.00 Rs.72,000.00 ¼th Deduction from enhanced income towards personal needs and expenditure Rs.18,000.00 Rs.54,000.00 Multiplier of net income applying the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) @17 Rs.9,18,000.00 Loss of consortium of Wife Rs.25,000.00 Rs.9,43,000.00 Loss of love and affection to two children Rs. 15,000 each i.e. Rs. 30,000 in all Rs.9,73,000.00 Loss of love and service to the mother Rs.15,000.00 Rs.9,88,000.00 Funeral and transportation expenses as awarded by the learned Tribunal Rs.5,000.00 Rs. 9,93,000 ______________ Total Compensation Rs. 9,93,000 ______________ 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned jugement cum award dated 11.1.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara is motified and the claimant-appellants are held entitled to enhanced compensation in terms of the above computation along with interest @ 7.5% to be applied on the enhanced amount. 12. 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. 10% each to both the children of the deceased. 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 the disbursal of the awarded amount:- (1) 20% of the enhanced amount shall be paid to the claimants by account payee cheque. 10% each to both the children of the deceased. 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 the disbursal of the awarded amount:- (1) 20% of the enhanced amount shall be paid to the claimants by account payee cheque. (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 before this Court for the release of 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. Record be sent back forthwith.No costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******