Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 995 (RAJ)

Bhoora Ram v. Mohan Lal

2016-07-14

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This appeal for enhancement of compensation has been filed by the appellants aggrieved against the award dated 21.4.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand ('the Tribunal'), whereby for death of one Ratan Lal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- to the appellants. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the appellants, inter-alia, with the averments that on 30.9.1992 Ratan Lal, who was travelling in Jeep No. GPW-1618 turned turtle and Ratan Lal, who was travelling in the jeep died. 3. The claimants, who are father, wife and minor daughter of the deceased claimed that the deceased was engaged in the work of vulcanization of tyre-tube and used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month and was aged about 21 years and based on the said aspect, claimed compensation of Rs. 5 lacs. 4. The application was opposed by the non-claimants including the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that there was lack of cogent evidence regarding the income of the deceased and therefore, treating the minimum income at Rs. 1,500/-, deducted Rs. 500/- towards personal expenses, took dependency at Rs. 1,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of 15 determined the compensation towards loss of income at Rs. 1,80,000/- and further a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and in all awarded a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- to the claimants. It was further directed that the claimants would be entitled for interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of application. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- per month, which is on the lower side, the multiplier of 17 should have been adopted in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 , submissions were made that the Tribunal should have awarded future prospects looking to the age of the deceased, no amount was awarded towards loss of consortium and loss of love & affection to the wife and minor child and therefore, the award impugned deserves to be enhanced. 7. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 , submissions were made that the Tribunal should have awarded future prospects looking to the age of the deceased, no amount was awarded towards loss of consortium and loss of love & affection to the wife and minor child and therefore, the award impugned deserves to be enhanced. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. It was submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- per month for lack of cogent evidence and at the relevant time, the minimum wages for un-skilled labour was Rs. 572/- per month and rate of skilled labour was Rs. 652/- per month and even after adding the future prospects at 50% to the said amount, the award of Rs. 1,000/- per month is excessive. 8. It was further submitted that the issue of award of future prospect, in case of a self-employed person is pending consideration before Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of conflicting decision in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. 2013 ACJ 1253 and Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 ACJ 1403. In view of the settled law that in case of judgments of equal strength Bench, it is the judgment in earlier point of time, which would prevail and therefore, the judgment in the case of Rajesh (supra) would be applicable. 9. It was submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which does not call for any interference. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. A look at the finding recorded by the Tribunal qua the income of the deceased shows that the same is cursory, inasmuch as, the statement of AW/1 Bhoora Ram, father of the deceased was not properly considered. The father of the deceased in his statement clearly stated that the deceased was involved in the work of tyre-tube vulcanization, he had shop in the village, used to earn Rs. 2000-2500/- per month. 12. In the cross-examination, he clarified that there was compressor installed where he was working, his tools were sold for a sum of Rs. The father of the deceased in his statement clearly stated that the deceased was involved in the work of tyre-tube vulcanization, he had shop in the village, used to earn Rs. 2000-2500/- per month. 12. In the cross-examination, he clarified that there was compressor installed where he was working, his tools were sold for a sum of Rs. 4,000/-, loan was taken from Cooperative Bank for purchasing the compressor and there was rebate for repayment of loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the Bank, however, as the amount could not be deposited in time, he was required to deposit Rs. 8,000/-. The said statement of Bhoora Ram and the extensive cross-examination clearly establishes that the deceased Ratan lal was involved in doing his business of tyre tube vulcanization and therefore, there is no question of taking the income of the deceased at the minimum wages as submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company. The claimants had claimed income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month in the application for compensation and in the statement, Bhoora Ram stated the income to be at Rs. 2000- 2500 per month, looking to the fact that the deceased was having a family of four persons including himself, the income of the deceased from the business of vulcanization instead of Rs. 1,500/- taken as minimum by the Tribunal is taken at Rs. 1,750/- per month. 13. So far as the multiplier is concerned, in view of the fact that there is no dispute about the age of the deceased, who was 21 years of age at the time of his death and had a daughter of 06 months, in view of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), a multiplier of 18 is to be applied. 14. Further irrespective of the pendency of the matter before the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the grant of future prospects, 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 & 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. 15. 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. 15. So far as the non-grant of amount of consortium and loss of love & affection is concerned, the Tribunal was not justified in not awarding the said amount as the said amount forms part of grant of just compensation. In view of the fact that the claim was filed in the year 1993, the appellant No.2 Smt. Narmda is awarded amount for loss of consortium to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and appellant No.3 daughter - Anita is awarded amount for loss of love & affection at Rs. 15,000/-. 16. In view of the above, the appellants would be entitled to compensation as under:- Rs.1750 x 12 x 18 = 3,78,000 (loss of income) – 1,26,000 (personal expenses ?rd) = 2,52,000 + 1,26,000 (future prospects) + 20,000 (loss of consortium) + 15,000 (loss of love & affection) = Rs. 4,13,000/- 17. On the enhanced amount of compensation, the appellants would be entitled to interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 25.1.1993. 18. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the petitioner would be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 2,21,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. w.e.f. 25.1.1993. Out of the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,21,000/-, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- along with interest be paid to the appellant No.1; a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest be paid to the appellant No.2 and a sum of Rs. 46,000/- along with interest be paid to the appellant No.3. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to make payment of enhanced amount to the appellants within a period of six weeks from the date of order.