Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1281 (RAJ)

Krishna Kawar v. Pratap Singh

2017-05-18

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2017
ORDER : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. 1. The instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide impugned judgment and award dated 26.03.2004 passed in Civil Misc. (MACT) Case No. 620/2000 whereby compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,24,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants/appellants. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 29.03.2000, deceased Surendra Singh was going from City to Pratap Nagar on his scooter. At that time, near Thokar Chauraha a Jeep bearing registration No. RJ-27-C-6671 coming from Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, hit the scooter of the deceased Surendra Singh, as a result of which Surendra Singh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. 3. Respondent-Insurance Company filed its reply denying the contents of the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues including the issue of relief. The claimants/appellants produced oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. No evidence was produced on behalf of the respondents. 5. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, vide its judgment and award dated 26.03.2004 awarded compensation of Rs. 9,24,000/- to the claimants/appellants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. Hence, this misc. appeal for enhancement of compensation. 6. Counsel for the claimants/appellants has submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side and needs to be enhanced as claimed in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal while calculating compensation has wrongly computed the income of the deceased. It is further argued that not a single penny has been awarded towards future prospects although the deceased was a 43 years old at the time of accident and his income would have certainly increased in the future. Counsel further argued that amount of compensation awarded in other head is also on lower side. It is thus prayed the impugned judgment and award deserves to be modified and compensation be suitably enhanced. 7. Counsel further argued that amount of compensation awarded in other head is also on lower side. It is thus prayed the impugned judgment and award deserves to be modified and compensation be suitably enhanced. 7. 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 learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 15 while calculating the amount of compensation, whereas as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, multiplier of 14 should have been applied. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the record and perused the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Udaipur. 9. As far as the monthly income of the deceased Surendra Singh is concerned, he was employed as Conductor with RSRTC, Udaipur Depot and as per his salary certificate (Ex-8) issued by the RSRTC, at the time of death his monthly income was Rs. 7,269/- including basic pay, D.A., H.R. and wash allowances but the learned Tribunal while calculating the compensation has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,864/- i.e. total of basic and dearness allowances. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal while calculating the compensation ought to have taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 7,269/- instead of Rs. 6,864/- as the salary certificate (Ex-8) clearly shows the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 7,269/-. 10. Coming now to the argument that the appellants/claimants should have been awarded additional amount of compensation under the head of future prospects considering that if deceased was working as Conductor, he would have progressed in his career and earned much more money than the emoluments that he was receiving. I find that the evidence on record proved that deceased was working on the post of Conductor with RSRTC, which is a Government of Rajasthan Undertaking. He had the future prospects of being promoted and in that event, receiving salary in the higher pay scale apart from receiving increments etc. I find that the evidence on record proved that deceased was working on the post of Conductor with RSRTC, which is a Government of Rajasthan Undertaking. He had the future prospects of being promoted and in that event, receiving salary in the higher pay scale apart from receiving increments etc. in the course of time and therefore, by corresponding number of years apart from the fact that his income has to be taken as a factor to determine quantum of compensation, this has also be considered that by corresponding number of years, he would also be gaining promotions, increments in his service career with passing time. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 24 in Sarla Verma (Supra) held as under: 24. In Susamma Thomas this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezabaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Whether the annual income is in the taxable range, the words "actual salary" should be read as "actual salary less tax"). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.) the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. 12. Admittedly, the deceased was 42-44 years old when he expired and he was a Conducted with RSRTC Depot Udaipur and in view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), benefit of future prospects should be granted by adding 30% of the total income of the deceased. 13. After adding 30% of the total income i.e. Rs. 13. After adding 30% of the total income i.e. Rs. 2,180/- the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 9,449/- (Rs. 7,269 + Rs. 2180/-) and after deducting on account of personal expenses, the actual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 7087/- (Rs. 9,449/- - Rs. 2,362/-). 14. So far as the question of applicability of multiplier is concerned, the learned Tribunal taking the age of the deceased as 44 years adopted the multiplier of 15. In the opinion of this Court, the multiplier of 15 adopted for computing the compensation 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 14 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." 15. Hence the loss of dependency deserves to be recalculated as under:- 7087 x 12 x 14 = 11,90,616/- 16. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the claimants/appellants as consortium for mental agony, loss of love and affection. As regards consortium for mental agony, loss of love and affection for the wife and children of the deceased, in the opinion of this Court, it has been awarded on a lower side as at the time of accident the wife and children of the deceased must have suffered a great shock and agony and should have been awarded at least Rs. 1,00,000/- on this count. Thus, it is held that the claimants/appellants are entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- towards consortium for mental agony and deprivation of married life. 1,00,000/- on this count. Thus, it is held that the claimants/appellants are entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- towards consortium for mental agony and deprivation of married life. The compensation awarded under other heads to the claimants does not call for any interference. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and while modifying the judgment and award dated 26.03.2004, the claimants are held to be entitled to get compensation in the sum of Rs. 12,94,616/- (Rs. 11,90,616/- + Rs. 1,00,000/- + Rs. 2,000/- + Rs. 500 + Rs. 1,500) instead of Rs. 9,24,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. The claimants will also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation.