Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1323 (RAJ)

Lad Kanwar v. R. S. R. T. C.

2014-07-03

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal is preferred by the appellants Claimants against the judgment and award dated 2.2.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in M.A.C. Case No. 320/1996 whereby the claim application filed by the claimants applicants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter called "the Act") was partly allowed and as against the claimed compensation of Rs. 11,81,800 on account of death of Devi Singh in a road accident, the claimants were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,33,800. 2. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issues of rash and negligent driving of the Bus No. RJ-14-P-4273 owned by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation by its driver, the entitlement of the claimants to receive compensation after rejecting the defences raised by the respondents and the liability of the non claimants to satisfy the award have not been challenged and have become final. The factual aspects on these issues need not be deliberated upon. 3. The deceased Devi Singh was aged 30 years. On 6.11.1995 when he was travelling in a tempo, the aforementioned bus owned by the Corporation collided with the tempo causing the instantaneous death of Devi Singh. The claimants averred in their claim application that the deceased was having an income Rs. 3,000 by working in the Adinath Oil Mill. He was also having agricultural income of Rs. 1,500 per month and accordingly, a claim of Rs. 11,81,800 in all was laid before the Tribunal under various heads. The Tribunal accepted the averments of the claimants regarding the salary of the deceased by working in Adinath Oil Mill at Rs. 3,000 per month. However, the plea of agricultural income was discarded and rightly so in the opinion of this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error in assessing the compensation on the following counts:- 1. As the deceased was 30 years of age, the multiplier of 8 applied for assessing the loss of income is unjust. As per the table formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the appropriate multiplier would be 17. 2. As the deceased was 30 years of age, the multiplier of 8 applied for assessing the loss of income is unjust. As per the table formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the appropriate multiplier would be 17. 2. No consideration for rise in income by future prospects was made by the Tribunal which is mandatory in the light of the law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 . 3. As the claimants are six in number, the deduction of ⅓"1 made by the Tribunal towards the personal needs and expenditure of the deceased is incorrect and should be l/4,h in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. &Anr. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2185 . 4. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded consolidated sum of Rs. 40,000 only to all the claimants including the wife, children and the parents of the deceased under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of love, affection and service which is grossly inadequate. He thus prayed for enhancement and separate awards under these heads. 5. Per contra Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Counsel for the respondent R.S.R.T.C. opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants and urged that the Tribunal has already awarded excessive compensation to the claimants and no further enhancement is called for. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment as well as the record. 7. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding the income of the deceased being Rs. 3,000 was not very seriously challenged by the learned Counsel appellant. However, the argument advanced regarding rise in income by future prospects carries force. As the deceased was just 30 years of age, 50% lion in his income is required to be made whilst calculating the loss of income caused to the claimants upon his death. As the age of the deceased was mars, the correct multiplier to be applied in the light of Sarla Verma's case (supra) would be 17 and not 8 as done by the learned Tribunal. As the age of the deceased was mars, the correct multiplier to be applied in the light of Sarla Verma's case (supra) would be 17 and not 8 as done by the learned Tribunal. The claimants are six in number, thus the deduction towards personal needs and expenditure of the deceased would be l/4lh and not l/3rd as done by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was not justified in dubbing and awarding a consolidated meagre sum of Rs. 4,00,000 the to all claimants under the heads of loss of consortium, love, affection and service. Separate compensation deserves to be awarded towards loss of consortium to the appellant wife, loss of love and affection to the children and loss of service to the parents. The appellant wife deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000 towards loss of consortium and the remaining appellants being the children and parents of the deceased deserve to be awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000 Blunder the head of loss of love, affection and service. The amount of Rs. 1,000 larded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 2,500. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion the following computation deserves to approved for deciding the quantum of enhanced compensation awardable to appellants:- Annual income of the deceased Rs. 3000 x 12 Rs.36,000.00 50% Enhancement in annual income by future prospects Rs.18,000.00 Rs.54,000.00 ¼th Deduction from enhanced income towards needs and personal expenditure of the deceased Rs.13,500.00 Rs.40,500.00 Multiplier to be applied @17 Rs.6,88,500.00 Funeral expense Rs.2,500.00 Rs.9,91,000.00 Loss of consortium to wife Rs.40,000.00 Rs.7,31,000.00 Loss of love and affection and service to the claimants No. 2 to 6 Rs. 20,000 x 5 = Rs. 1,00,000 Rs. 8,31,000 ______________ Total compensation awardable Rs. 8,31,000 ______________ 9. 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. The enhanced amount shall distributed in the following proportions:- 1. 50% to the wife of the deceased, 2. 30% to the parents of the deceased, 3. 20% to the minor children of the deceased. The share of the minor children (if any), shall be disbursed to her natural guardian i.e. mother till attaining majority.In order to ascertain that the claimants are benefited to the maximum by the enhancement in the award. 30% to the parents of the deceased, 3. 20% to the minor children of the deceased. The share of the minor children (if any), shall be disbursed to her natural guardian i.e. mother till attaining majority.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 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 the amount from the fixed deposits. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.T., Udaipur is modified and the appellants are held entitled to enhanced compensation as indicated above. Record be sent back forthwith. No costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******