Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1086 (RAJ)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla

2016-07-28

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mr. Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13/4/2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,78,860/- as compensation to the respondent nos. 1 to 8 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing application for compensation i.e. 5/5/2014. 2. The facts in brief will be noticed thus : an application was filed by the claimants, who are wife, children and mother of the deceased Bhanwar Lal, inter alia with the averments that on 23/2/2014 deceased was travelling in Mini Bus No. RJ-19-PA- 7378 as a part of marriage party, while returning back from marriage, the Bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver, which resulted in the Bus turning turtle, wherein, Bhanwar Lal suffered injuries and succumbed to them. It was claimed that the deceased was aged 42 years and was working with Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd., Pali, wherein, he was getting Rs. 6601.57 p.m. as salary, after working at the said Mill he used to do other work and earn Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and in this manner he used to earn a total of Rs. 9,600/- p.m. For the death of said Bhanwar Lal, a claim of Rs. 65,45,600/- was made. The application was resisted by the non-claimants, driver, owner & Insurance Company. 3. Based on the averments of the parties, the Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of claimants, A.W.1-Smt. Kamla, A.W.2-Ramesh were examined and 19 documents were exhibited including Pay Slip of deceased Bhanwar Lal as Ex.18. 4. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Mini Bus and the objections raised by the Insurance Company disputing its liability were baseless. 5. While calculating the amount of compensation the Tribunal found on the basis of Pay Slip of the deceased, his salary was Rs. 6601.57 per month and as no further evidence was produced qua the additional income, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs. 6600/- per month. The age of the deceased was taken at 47 years and future prospects at 30% were added for arriving at the loss of income. 6601.57 per month and as no further evidence was produced qua the additional income, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs. 6600/- per month. The age of the deceased was taken at 47 years and future prospects at 30% were added for arriving at the loss of income. On account of number of dependents i.e. 8, deduction for personal expenses were made at 1/4 and a multiplier of 13 was applied, which resulted in compensation of Rs. 10,03,860/-. Thereafter, after providing for loss of consortium and loss of care & guidance for children at Rs. 1 lac each and for love and affection for mother at Rs. 50,000/-, funeral expenses at Rs. 25,000/- and loss of estate at Rs. 1 lac, the total compensation of Rs. 18,78,860/- was awarded. 6. The present appeal filed by the Insurance Company is confined to the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding the amount under the head 'future prospects' as the said amount was not payable to the claimants as the deceased was not in permanent job. It was submitted that the addition of 30% amount towards future prospects is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 65 , wherein, it has been held that in case of self employed persons, future prospects are not admissible. Further averments were made that the award of amount towards loss of estate is also without any basis and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent caveator submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and fair and does not call for any interference. It was submitted that the deceased was in settled job, which is proved from the material available on record, wherein, the permanent job card of deceased was produced and Pay Slip (Ex.18) clearly indicates the said aspect as deductions under Provident Fund, ESI etc. have all been made and no material contrary to the said aspect was placed on record. The deceased was working with a public limited company and was in settled job and, therefore, the award of amount towards future prospects is justified. 8. have all been made and no material contrary to the said aspect was placed on record. The deceased was working with a public limited company and was in settled job and, therefore, the award of amount towards future prospects is justified. 8. It was further submitted that the amount towards loss of estate was awarded in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta & ors. v. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Kolhapur, (2015) 3 SCC 590 . It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased based on the Pay Slip (Ex.18), which Pay Slip has been issued by Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd. and indicates the salary of the deceased at Rs. 6601.57 per month and provides for several deductions including deductions toward Provident Fund & E.S.I. Along with the said Pay Slip, a permanent labour card, which is meant for entering into the factory premises, has also been produced, which clearly indicates that the deceased was in settled/permanent job. Based on the said Pay Slip, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,600/- per month. So far as the award of amount under future prospects is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that where the deceased had a stable job, the Court can take note of prospects of future and it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the actual income of the deceased at the time of death and that future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. 11. In view of the documentary evidence which has come on record, in the absence of any contrary material produced by the non-claimants disputing the veracity of the said documents, it is obvious that the deceased was in stable job at the time of his death and, therefore, the award of amount under the head 'future prospects' at the rate of 30% as provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) deserves to be upheld. 12. 12. So far as the award of sum of Rs. 1 lac towards loss of estate is concerned, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lac towards loss of estate to a similarly situated person, the award of compensation under the said head also cannot be questioned. No other issue was argued by the parties. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.