Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1014 (RAJ)

Durga v. Raju

2016-07-19

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal for enhancement has been filed by the claimants aggrieved against judgment and award dated 20.3.1997, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby qua death of one Madanlal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,36,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application i.e. 14.7.1993. 2. The application for compensation was filed by wife, two children and parents of deceased Madanlal, who died in accident while driving the motorcycle, which collided with City-Bus No. RJ-19-P-0809. It was claimed that the deceased was working in mines and was earning Rs. 60/- per day and was aged 23 years and based on the said submissions, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,25,700/- was sought. 3. On behalf of the claimants, evidence was led, wherein three witnesses were examined. On behalf of the Insurance Company, two witnesses were examined. 4. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no rebuttal of the evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 60/- per day and he was aged 23 years and based on the said aspect, calculated the income of deceased at Rs. 1800/- per month Rs. 21,600/- per year and after deducting ?rd towards the personal expenses, dependency was assessed at Rs. 14,400/-. The "Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,16,000/- and awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards mental agony and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded towards the agony suffered by Madanlal after accident and before his death, and based on the said calculation, a sum of Rs. 2,36,000/- along with interest as noticed here in before was awarded. 5. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed error in applying the multiplier and providing for deduction on ?rd towards the personal expenses, which is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 6. It was further submitted that no amount was awarded towards future prospects, which is contrary to the law laid down by Hon’be Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 and, therefore, the award deserves to be enhanced appropriately. 7. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 6. It was further submitted that no amount was awarded towards future prospects, which is contrary to the law laid down by Hon’be Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 and, therefore, the award deserves to be enhanced appropriately. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents supported the award impugned passed by the Tribunal. It was submitted that the appellants did not lead any documentary evidence regarding the income of the deceased. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and ors. v. Madan Mohan and anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 , has held that in case of a self-employed person, the grant of future prospect is not permissible, which judgment was not taken into consideration while dealing with the case of Rajesh (supra). Further, the said issue is pending consideration before the Larger Bench and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to grant of any amount under the head of future prospects. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The age of the deceased being 23 years is not in dispute. The claimants claimed that the deceased was working in the mines and claimed compensation by indicating the income of the deceased at Rs. 60 per day. To fortify the said claim, the statements of AW-1 Smt. Durga wife of the deceased were recorded, wherein she claimed that deceased used to earn Rs. 60/- per day, in the extensive cross-examination conducted by the Counsel for the Insurance Company, the said witness stuck to the fact that the deceased was earning Rs. 60/- per day and further AW-3 Bholaram, father of the deceased was also examined, who also was extensively cross-examined on the aspect of income also with stood the cross-examination and submitted that deceased was earning Rs. 60/- per day. 10. In view of the said uncontroverted evidence, the assessment of income of the deceased at Rs. 60/- per day i.e. Rs. 1,800/- per month cannot be faulted. 11. 60/- per day. 10. In view of the said uncontroverted evidence, the assessment of income of the deceased at Rs. 60/- per day i.e. Rs. 1,800/- per month cannot be faulted. 11. So far as the deduction under the head of personal expenses and application of multiplier is concerned, the said aspect stands concluded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), according to which, the deduction for personal expenses in the present case would be ¼th and a multiplier of 18 is required to applied. 12. So far as the award of compensation on the head of future prospects is concerned, looking to the fact that even after the matter was referred to the Larger Bench, subsequent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Munnalal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and ors., 2015 ACJ 1985 , after noticing judgment in the case of Reshma (supra), relying on the judgment in the case of Rajesh (supra), awarded compensation towards future prospects in the case of self-employed person, the appellants are entitled to future prospects @ 50% of the amount. 13. In view of the above, the appellants are entitled to compensation as under:- Rs. 1800 + 900 = 2700 - 675 = 2025 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 4,37,400/- and after adding the amount as awarded by the Tribunal under other heads i.e. Rs. 20,000/-, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 4,57,400/- instead of Rs. 2,36,000/-, the appellants are also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,21,400/- @ 7% per annum from the date of the application i.e. 14.7.1993. Out of the enhanced amount, a sum of Rs. 1,21,400/- along with interest be paid to appellant No. 1, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each along with interest be paid to appellants No. 2 and 3, and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each along with interest would be paid to appellants No. 4 and 5. 14. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 20.3.1997 passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified in terms of the directions issued here in before, whereby the appellants would be entitled a further compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each along with interest would be paid to appellants No. 4 and 5. 14. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 20.3.1997 passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified in terms of the directions issued here in before, whereby the appellants would be entitled a further compensation of Rs. 2,21,400/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application i.e. 14.7.1993 and the amount will be disbursed in the saving bank account of the appellants as per the directions indicated here in before. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount within a period of 6 weeks from the date of judgment.