Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 391 (RAJ)

Santa v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

2016-03-09

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2016
ORDER : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present appeal has been filed by the family members of Late Ramji Lal. They are aggrieved against the award given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur (hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the widow, two minor sons and one major son have been awarded in all compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-. 2. A perusal of the award reveals that on 15.3.2004, at 10:15 AM, due to an accident of Jeep, Ramji Lal had died. The finding that vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner has not been assailed before this Court by the Insurance Company. 3. The Tribunal held the age of the deceased Ramji Lal to be 40 years. The Tribunal further came to the conclusion that since no proof of income has been produced, the income of the deceased is to be computed taking into consideration the minimum wages prescribed in the State of Rajasthan. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased Ramji Lal was earning Rs. 1,800/- per month. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has shown the notification issued by the State of Rajasthan and has submitted that as per notification, on 20.7.2004, minimum wages in the State of Rajasthan for unskilled labourer was Rs. 73/- daily. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the deceased on the lower side. 5. I find merit in the contention. The State Government in year 2004 had prescribed Rs. 73/- as daily wages of unskilled labourer. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased taking Rs. 73/- as daily wages is to be assessed as Rs. 2,190/- per month. The Tribunal has also not awarded future prospects. As it is common knowledge that due to inflation, daily wages have increased multifold. Since, the deceased was 40 years old, 30% is to be awarded as future prospects. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased taking Rs. 73/- as daily wages is to be assessed as Rs. 2,190/- per month. The Tribunal has also not awarded future prospects. As it is common knowledge that due to inflation, daily wages have increased multifold. Since, the deceased was 40 years old, 30% is to be awarded as future prospects. It will be apposite here to reproduce the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others, AIR 2003 SC 674 , as under: "Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years." 6. The above view of the Supreme Court has been recently followed by another three-judge Bench in the case of Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, MACD 2015 (SC) 139. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has further read Para 20 of the judgment in the case of Rajesh's case (supra), to say that Consortium awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. 8. In the case of Rajesh and others (supra) in Para 20, Supreme Court has observed as under :- "20. The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santosh Devi (supra). The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santosh Devi (supra). We may therefore, revisit the practise of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-, In legal parlance, 'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also recognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium." 9. The Tribunal has also awarded lower amount to the children for loss of care, affection and guidance by the father. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium." 9. The Tribunal has also awarded lower amount to the children for loss of care, affection and guidance by the father. Therefore, taking into consideration the above parameters, this Court is of the view that the compensation by the court below is required to be re-assessed as under:- S. No. Heads Calculation (i) Income Rs. 73/- as daily wage x 30 Rs. 2,190/- per month (ii) 30% of (i) above to be added as future prospects Rs. 2,190 + 657 = Rs. 2,847/- per month (iii) 1/3rd of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased Rs. 2,847 – 949 = Rs. 1898/- per month (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 15 is applied Rs. 1898 x 12 x 15 = 3,41,640/- (v) Loss of Consortium Rs. 50,000/- (vi) Loss of care, affection and guidance of father to three sons Rs. 30,000 x 3 = Rs. 90,000/- (vii) Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Compensation awarded Rs. 4,96,640/- 10. Thus, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 4,96,640/- in above terms. The said amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Banwari major son of deceased Ramji Lal is only held entitled to Rs. 30,000/- for loss of care, affection and guidance by the father. 11. It is hereby, ordered that the enhanced amount shall be kept in the Monthly Income Scheme in the post office initially for a lock-in period of three years and the interest accrued upon the deposit shall be paid to the claimants proportionately on monthly basis. 12. The trial court in the best interest of the claimants, shall keep the amount in the Monthly Income Scheme with the Indian Post Office and shall open separate accounts in the name of each claimant. 13. However, a further direction is hereby, issued to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Dholpur to acquaint the claimants regarding the amount, which has accrued to them by way of enhancement and the fact that the amount shall be kept in Monthly Income Scheme in the Indian Post Office for the benefit of the claimants. 14. 13. However, a further direction is hereby, issued to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Dholpur to acquaint the claimants regarding the amount, which has accrued to them by way of enhancement and the fact that the amount shall be kept in Monthly Income Scheme in the Indian Post Office for the benefit of the claimants. 14. The above direction regarding deposit in Monthly Income Scheme with Indian Post Office has been issued as it has been brought to the notice of this Court, that go between or relations fritter away with the amount awarded as compensation, on the ground that money has been spent towards litigation expenses. 15. With the above modification in the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur, present appeal stands disposed of. Listed in the cause-list under the heading of " To be mentioned".(11.3.2016) 16. Before the above order could be signed, Mr. Amarnath Pareek, learned counsel appearing for respondent/insurance-company, brought to the notice of the Court that Mr. D.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, had not referred to the date of gazette notification, whereby minimum wages of unskilled labourer were fixed. Mr. Pareek, has submitted that the notification was issued on 20.07.2004 and in the present case, accident had taken place four month's earlier i.e. on 15.03.2004, hence, this Court cannot take into consideration Rs. 73/- as daily wages of the unskilled labourer. 17. In view of the request made, the matter was listed today in the cause list under the heading of "To be mentioned". 18. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced by Mr. Amarnath Pareek, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ insurance-company. 19. It is correct that the notification was issued by the Rajasthan Government on 20.07.2004 and Rs. 73/- was fixed as wages for unskilled labourer, but at the same time, it is a common knowledge that in the open market, wages of unskilled labourer are more than prescribed and the Government also takes its own sweet time to issue notification. Three month's time here and there, being too hyper-technicality cannot stand in the way of interpretation of legislation which is beneficial in nature. Hence, daily wages of deceased has been rightly assessed as Rs. 73/-, therefore, no modification in the order dated 11th of March, 2016 is warranted.