Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 379 (RAJ)

Babita Sharma v. Shadat Ali

2016-03-04

VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. In view of the limited controversy raised as to the enhancement of the award dated 20th July, 2011, the matter was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The claimants/appellants have instituted the present appeal aggrieved of the inadequate compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur, against the conventional heads for the 'loss of consortium', 'loss of love and affection to the parents', 'children' and an amount of only Rs. 2,000/-, allowed against 'funeral expenses'. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset fairly conceded that taking into consideration the fact that age of the deceased was determined as 27 years, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied rather than 18, and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be reduced accordingly. 4. According to the learned counsel, the compensation allowed under the conventional heads is far less than what has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in recent pronouncements even in the cases where the accident dates back to the year 1996, and therefore, the award needs to be enhanced on those counts. It is further emphatically asserted that in the instant case at hand, the incident dates back to the year 2008, leading to death of Sanjay Singh, who was driver and was earning an amount of Rs. 9,000/- per month. 5. It is further contended that the Tribunal committed gross illegality in not allowing just, fair and reasonable compensation, as contemplated under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988') for the interest allowed on the amount of compensation was only to the extent of 6% whereas 9% interest ought to have been allowed. 6. Reliance has been placed on the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Neeta (Smt.) W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors. Etc. v. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, (2015) 3 SCC 590 . 7. 6. Reliance has been placed on the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Neeta (Smt.) W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors. Etc. v. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, (2015) 3 SCC 590 . 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Companies, while supporting the impugned award, vehemently argued that the Tribunal, on a consideration of the pleadings of the parties and proper appreciation of the evidence as well as law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has allowed adequate, fair and reasonable compensation, and therefore, the award needs no further enhancement by this Court. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 9. Since the claim for an income of Rs. 9,000/- was given up by the counsel for the appellants, the factual matrix is not in dispute. The fact that multiplier of 18 applied while calculating the 'loss of dependency' where the age of the deceased was 27 years, is admittedly erroneous. Accordingly, applying the multiplier of 17, the amount of compensation for 'loss of dependency' needs to be modified. Thus, on account of loss of dependency, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 4050X12X17=8,26,200/- (Rupees Eight Lac Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred) 10. It is also not in dispute that from the materials available on record, it is also evident that the deduction to the extent of ?rd on account of personal and living expenses of the deceased is contrary to the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC, 121, wherein ¼th of the income assessed is to be deducted in a case where the number of dependents is 4 to 6. Thus, the impugned award needs to be modified to that extent as well. 11. While dealing with the issue of grant of compensation under conventional heads and interest on the amount of compensation in the case of Neeta (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: "10. Further, we award Rs. 1,00,000/- to each of the appellant-children, i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- respectively, as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Further, we award Rs. 1,00,000/- to each of the appellant-children, i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- respectively, as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 166 : MACD 2013 (SC) 217 towards loss of love and affection of the deceased father. Further, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each is to be awarded to the parents of the deceased for the loss of love and affection of their deceased son as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case of M. Mansoor & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) 12 Scale 324 : MACD 2013 (SC) 375. We further award Rs. 25,000/- each towards funeral expenses of both the deceased as held by this Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 : MACD 2013 (SC) 186. 11. The appellants are also entitled to the interest on the compensation awarded by this Court in these appeals at the rate of 9% p.a. along with the amount under the different heads as indicated above. The Courts below have erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the compensation awarded by them to the appellants without following the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors., (2011) 14 SCC 481 : MACD 2012 (SC) 30. Accordingly, we award the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. On the compensation determined in these appeals from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment." 12. Applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases aforesaid, the appellants would be entitled to the compensation under the following heads, thus: Sr. No. Head As per the Tribunal (in Rs.) As per this Court (in Rs.) Enhanced amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss dependency 5,83,200/- 6,19,650/- 36,450/- 2. For loss of consortium 5,000/- 1,00,000/- 95,000/- 3. For loss of love and affection to each children 8,000/- 3,00,000/- 2,92,000/- 4. For loss of love and affection to parents 2,000/- 50,000/- 48,000/- 5. Funeral Expenses 2,000/- 25,000/- 23,000/- 6. Loss of estate Nil 50,000/- 50,000/- Total Amount 6,00,200/- 11,44,650/- 5,44,450 13. Accordingly, the claimants/appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. For loss of love and affection to each children 8,000/- 3,00,000/- 2,92,000/- 4. For loss of love and affection to parents 2,000/- 50,000/- 48,000/- 5. Funeral Expenses 2,000/- 25,000/- 23,000/- 6. Loss of estate Nil 50,000/- 50,000/- Total Amount 6,00,200/- 11,44,650/- 5,44,450 13. Accordingly, the claimants/appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 5,44,450/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till actual payment. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in view of the terms indicated above. The compensation awarded shall be apportioned in the ratio of 50% each, between the two respondent-Insurance companies for payment of the amount through Demand Draft/Drafts, in favour of the appellants or they may deposit the amount with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. No costs.