Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1325 (RAJ)

Lata v. Hamendra Singh

2014-07-03

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant enhancement appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants challenging the judgment cum award dated 30.5.2000 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand in I.A.C. Case No. 488/1998, whereby, the claimant-appellants were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,63,000 as against the claim of Rs. 62,25,000 upon lie death of Shri Dinesh Chandra. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 13.10.1994, the deceased Dinesh Chandra was going with one Udai Singh on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ-27-M-1-1000 from Nathdwara to Piparda. It about 11.45 A.M., near the "Karjaya" valley, a bus bearing Registration No. RJ- I7-P-1102 came from the opposite direction. The bus driver drove the bus rashly, legligently and at an excessive speed and collided with the motorcycle. Dinesh handra received a fatal head injury in the collision and expired on the spot. Udai Singh also received injuries in the accident. The bus was being driven by Ramesh Chandra and the owner thereof was Hemendra Singh Krishnawat. At the time of - lie accident, the bus was being operated on a contract with the R.S.R.T.C. and (as insured by the New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Udaipur. 3. A claim application was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Dinesh Chandra under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act impleading the driver, owner, R.S.R.T.C. and the insurer of the vehicle in question as non-claimants, total amount to the tune of Rs. 62,25,000 was claimed as compensation. 4. On behalf of the respondent R.S.R.T.C., a reply was filed claiming that the terms and conditions of the contract under which the bus was being operated absolved it from the liability towards the accident and, thus, it was not liable to satisfy the claim. The Insurance Company took a defence that a jeep was going head of the motorcycle and the accident was caused by the rash and negligent riving of the jeep driver. It was submitted that the jeep driver, owner and the insurer were not impleaded as non-claimants in the claim application and, therefore, the claim application was not maintainable. The other usual defences regarding the driver of the offending vehicle not having appropriate licence to drive the vehicle etc. were also raised by the Insurance Company. 5. It was submitted that the jeep driver, owner and the insurer were not impleaded as non-claimants in the claim application and, therefore, the claim application was not maintainable. The other usual defences regarding the driver of the offending vehicle not having appropriate licence to drive the vehicle etc. were also raised by the Insurance Company. 5. The learned Tribunal framed the usual issues regarding the accident having occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver Ramesh Chandra, the defences raised by the Insurance Company and the R.S.R.T.C., the entitlement of the claimants to receive the compensation and the quantum thereof. 6. The learned Tribunal held that the bus driver drove the bus rashly and negligently and caused the accident. The driver, owner, R.S.R.T.C. and the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. were held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award which was assessed at Rs. 6,63,000. The non-claimants have not challenged the Tribunal's findings and thus the same have become final against them. 7. The claimant-appellants have filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to them. 8. Learned Counsel Shri Dilip Kawadia submitted that the learned Tribunal committed errors on the following counts while assessing compensation awardable to the claimant-appellants(i) The claimants' evidence regarding the income of the deceased was discarded without any justification. The income of the deceased was held to be only Rs. 6,500 per month despite ample evidence having been led to show that the deceased was having numerous sources of income and was earning well in excess of Rs. 20,000 per month. (ii) As the deceased was between the age group of 25 to 30 years, the correct multiplier to be applied would be 16 instead of 12 as done by the learned Tribunal. (iii) No consideration was made by the Tribunal for rise in income of the deceased by future prospects. (iv) The deduction of l/3rd made by the learned Tribunal towards personal needs and expenditure is also inappropriate because the claimants are four in number. (v) The amount of Rs. 15,000 awarded to the wife of the deceased towards loss of consortium is inadequate. (vi) No separate amount was awarded to the appellant No. 2, the daughter of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. (vii) No amount was awarded to the appellant Nos. (v) The amount of Rs. 15,000 awarded to the wife of the deceased towards loss of consortium is inadequate. (vi) No separate amount was awarded to the appellant No. 2, the daughter of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. (vii) No amount was awarded to the appellant Nos. 3 and 4, the parents of the deceased towards loss of love and service. 9. Learned Counsel for the claimant-appellants thus prayed that appropriate enhancement deserves to be directed in the compensation awarded to the claimants under the aforesaid heads. 10. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company and the R.S.R.T.C. have vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has already awarded excessive compensation to the claimant-appellants and thus no enhancement is called for in the award. 11. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment cum award as well as the record. 12. First coming to the finding of the Tribunal regarding the income of the deceased. In this regard, I have perused the income tax returns of the deceased Submitted by the claimants before the learned Tribunal. The income tax returns of lie deceased disclose his annual income to be much less than what was assessed y the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal accepted the oral evidence of the Claimants and held his income to be almost double of what was disclosed in his income tax returns. In the ITR (Exhibit-42/A), the gross annual income of the deceased was shown as Rs. 38,700. The Tribunal held his income to be Rs. 6,500 per month i.e. Rs. 78,000 per annum. 13. As a matter of fact, the assessment of the income of the deceased made by the Tribunal at Rs. 6,500 per month takes care of the aspect of rise in income by mure prospects. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal committed no error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,500 per month for calculating the compensation. Compensation has to be calculated by taking the income of the deceased inclusive of the rise in income by mure prospects as being Rs. 6,500 per month. 14. 6,500 per month for calculating the compensation. Compensation has to be calculated by taking the income of the deceased inclusive of the rise in income by mure prospects as being Rs. 6,500 per month. 14. 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 32 years of age, the appropriate multiplier to be applied for calculating the loss of income would be 16 instead of 12 as done by the learned Tribunal. As the claimants are four in number, the deduction of ⅓ made by the larned Tribunal towards personal needs and expenditure is also inappropriate. 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 he claimants are four in number, proper deduction towards personal needs and expenditure should be l/4lh of the income of the deceased and not l/3rd as done by he learned Tribunal. The amount of Rs. 15,000 awarded to the wife of the deceased awards loss of consortium is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 40,000. No amount was awarded to the minor daughter of the deceased (appellant No. 2) towards loss of love and affection. Thus, a sum of Rs. 20,000 deserves to be awarded to her towards loss of love and affection. Likewise, the appellant Nos. 3 and 4, the parents of the deceased were not awarded any amount awards loss of love and service. Thus, a sum of Rs. 20,000 each deserves to be warded to them towards loss of love and service. 15. Consequently, enhancement deserves to be directed in compensation warded to the appellants keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 . 16. In view of what has been discussed above, the following computation deserves to be approved for calculating the enhanced compensation awardable to the claimants-appellants Total Annual income of the deceased (inclusive of rise in income by future prospects) Rs. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2185 , Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 . 16. In view of what has been discussed above, the following computation deserves to be approved for calculating the enhanced compensation awardable to the claimants-appellants Total Annual income of the deceased (inclusive of rise in income by future prospects) Rs. 6,500x 12 Rs.78,000.00 l/4lh Deduction from enhanced income towards personal needs and expenditure Rs.19,500.00 Rs.58,500.00 Multiplier of net income applying the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) @ 16 Rs.9,36,000.00 Loss of consortium to wife Rs.40,000.00 Rs.9,76,000.00 Loss of love and affection to the daughter Rs.20,000.00 Rs.9,96,000.00 Loss of love and affection and service to the parents Rs. 20,000 each i.e. Rs. 40,000 Rs.10,36,000.00 Total compensation Rs.10,36,000.00 The appeal is allowed in part in the above terms. The impugned judgment cum award dated 30.5.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand is modified and the appellants are held entitled to enhanced compensation indicated above along with interest @ 7.5% to be applied on the enhanced amount.The enhanced amount shall be distributed in the following proportions 1. 50% to the wife of the deceased, 2. 20% to the daughter of the deceased, 3. 30% to the parents of the deceased. 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 cheques. (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. 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. 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. *******