Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1270 (RAJ)

Mewaram v. Heeraram @ Hariram

2017-05-17

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT ORDER Goverdhan Bardhar, J. - The instant civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran, District Pali (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide impugned judgment and award dated 13.07.2011 passed in Claim Case No. 67/2009, whereby compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants/appellants. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants/appellants filed a claim petition before MACT, Jaitaran, Pali against the respondents claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- on account of death of Ghasiram. In the claim petition it was stated that on 01.03.2009 at about 10:45 am deceased Ghasiram was going on feet on Bangad Cement Plant Road. At that time, a truck bearing registration No. RJ-01-G-5796 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently and from back tyre of khalasi side passed over Ghasiram as a result of which Ghasiram died on the spot. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed their reply stating that no accident took place by their vehicle on alleged date. Vehicle of the answering respondents falsely implicated in this case. At the time of accident, the vehicle was fully insured with the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company and therefore, the respondent No. 3 is liable to make payment of compensation. 4. Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company filed its reply with the averment that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid driving licence and there was no permit of the vehicle and thereby violated terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the respondent Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay compensation and hence prayed for dismissal of the claim. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed five issues including the issue of relief. In support of their case, the appellants-claimants submitted oral and documentary evidence. In rebuttal, no evidence was adduced by the non-claimants respondents. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration entire facts of the case, vide its judgment and award dated 13.07.2011 awarded a compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- in favour of the claimants/appellants. Hence, this misc. appeal on behalf of the claimant/appellant for enhancement of compensation. 5. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration entire facts of the case, vide its judgment and award dated 13.07.2011 awarded a compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- in favour of the claimants/appellants. Hence, this misc. appeal on behalf of the claimant/appellant for enhancement of compensation. 5. Counsel for the claimants/appellants has submitted that it is not in dispute that at the time of accident the deceased was 20 years old and the learned Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation has applied multiplier of 15 whereas multiplier of 18 should have been applied according to second schedule of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act so also in consonance with the view expressed by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 . Counsel further argued that in all the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on the lower side. Counsel prayed that in all a lump sum additional amount of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- may be awarded to the claimants/appellants. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the claimants/appellants and submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and warrants no interference. 7. I have considered the submissions on behalf of the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment/award as also material available. 8. Before the learned Tribunal, there is no dispute about the liability of the respondent-Insurance Company. It is also not in dispute the at the time of accident the deceased was 20 year of age but the learned Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation applied multiplier of 15 which is without justification and erroneous and in the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) multiplier of 18 should have been applied. Hon''ble Apex Court while assessing the multiplier in para 42 of said judgment has held as under :- "We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." 9. However, considering the fact that the learned Tribunal has applied wrong multiplier while calculating the amount of compensation and as argued by the counsel for the claimants/appellants regarding award of additional lump sum amount of compensation, this Court thinks it proper that the claimants/appellants are entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 63,000/-. Hence, in addition to the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, Rs. 63,000/- deserves to be enhanced with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Therefore, the impugned award needs to be modified and enhanced to the above extent. 10. In the result, this misc. appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated 13.07.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran, Pali in Claim Case No. 67/2009 stands modified to the above extent. The appellants/claimants shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 63,000/- in addition to compensation amount already awarded by the learned Tribunal along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.