Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 518 (RAJ)

Jarino Bano v. Dharmendra Kumar Saini Anr.

2014-02-20

NISHA GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment /award dated 4.2.2010 passed by Judge, MACT, (Fast Track), Kotputli Distt. Jaipur in Claim Case No. 189/2008 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the award. 2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that claimants -appellants filed a claim petition due to death of Haider Ali in the road accident on 29.3.2008 when he was crossing the National Highway No. 8 near Dhani Gaskan, a trolla being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit him and he died on the spot. Claim petition has been filed and the Tribunal has not awarded reasonable and fair compensation to the claimants. Hence, this appeal. 3. The contention of the appellants are that income of the deceased has not been calculated rightly, wrong multiplier has been applied. Now it is settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court that as per age of the deceased, the multiplier should be adopted, for love and affection and funeral expenses, a meager amount has been awarded, the deceased was of the age of 20 years inspite of this, no future prospects have been calculated, hence, the award should be enhanced properly.Per contra the contention of the respondents is that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. The income has rightly been assessed on the scale of minimum wages. No documentary evidence has been produced to prove the income. Father and mother are the dependents and while calculating their expectancy of life, multiplier has rightly been applied and for love and affection, a reasonable amount has been awarded. Deceased was not in permanent job and hence there was no question for calculating future prospects. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as original record of the case. 5. It has been asserted by the claimants that deceased was doing the work of electric welding and earning Rs. 7,500/- per month but no documentary evidence has been produced for the same. Hence, the court below has rightly calculated the income as Rs. 3,000/- per month on the guideline of minimum wages prevalent at the time of his death. The appellants has relied upon Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza & ors. 7,500/- per month but no documentary evidence has been produced for the same. Hence, the court below has rightly calculated the income as Rs. 3,000/- per month on the guideline of minimum wages prevalent at the time of his death. The appellants has relied upon Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza & ors. v. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, MACD 2013 (SC) 356 and Radhakrishna & Anr. v. Gokul & ors., MACD 2013 (SC) 364 , where on the facts of the particular case, compensation has been calculated. 6. The other contention of the claimants is that the multiplier should be applied on the basis of the age of the deceased. Reliance has been placed on Amrit Bhanu Shali & ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors., 2012 R.A.R. 138 (SC) and it has been further followed in M. Mansoor & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., MACD 2013 (SC) 375 wherein it has been held that the multiplier is to be applied on the basis of the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependents and reason has been given that there may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of the compensation and the contention of the appellants on the basis of law laid down above is that on the age of the deceased i.e. 20 years, a higher multiplier should be applied.Per contra, the respondents have relied upon It is the earlier law Sarla Verma (Smt.) & ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 . laid down by the Apex Court that the multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalized. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 . laid down by the Apex Court that the multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalized. On the above proposition, selection of multiplier could only be the age of the parents on the basis of the fact that only till their life-time, it can be said that they have purchased the number of such years and court below has not committed any illegality in applying the multiplier having regard to the age of the dependents who are father and mother and apart from it, in the present case, there is not much difference in the age of dependents and age of dependents has direct nexus with the computation of compensation, hence the multiplier has rightly been applied. Further reliance has also been placed by the respondents on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mathai & ors., II (2010) ACC 788 (DB) , hence there is no infirmity in applying the multiplier and court below has rightly applied the multiplier of to assess the reasonable and fair compensation. 7. The other contention of the appellants is that deceased was only of 20 years of age inspite of this, no future prospects have been assessed. The court below has held that deceased was not having any regular income and only on the basis of minimum wages, 3,000/- income has been assessed and in view of the law laid down in Reshma Kumari & ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., MACD (SC) 2013 130 wherein it has been held that if the deceased has self employed or not on fixed salary, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects should be counted. The respondents has relied upon Cholamandalam Ms General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Sushma Rani & ors., III (2012) ACC 210 wherein it has been held that if there is no evidence that deceased was permanent employee and had bright future prospects, the claimants are not entitled to any advantage on account of future prospects. The court below has rightly not granted the compensation for future prospects. 8. The other contention of the appellants is that for funeral expenses and love and affection a very meager amount has been awarded. The court below has rightly not granted the compensation for future prospects. 8. The other contention of the appellants is that for funeral expenses and love and affection a very meager amount has been awarded. The court below has awarded compensation for loss of love and affection to the father and mother and even to the grand mother and also for funeral expenses, 5,000/- has been awarded. The appellants has relied upon Rajesh & ors. v. Rajbir Singh & ors., MACD 2013 (SC) 186 wherein for loss of consortium, the award amount has been enhanced. Here the case is not of loss of consortium. Admittedly, the deceased was resident of small village, Bhabru, Police Station Shahpura, in view of that funeral expenses of Rs. 5,000/- has rightly been calculated and no interference is needed. 9. In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. The court below has rightly awarded a fair and reasonable compensation and no interference is needed.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******