Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1350 (RAJ)

Lal Chand v. Karan Singh

2017-05-25

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Goverdhan Bardhar, J. - 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, Rajsamand (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide impugned judgment and award dated 22.01.2001 passed in Civil Misc. (MACT) case No. 327/1998 whereby compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants/appellants. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 29.10.1993 deceased Kailash Chandra along with Radheyshyam were going to Kelwa on scooter. When they reached near Pasund, a Truck No. RJ 17/G 0075 coming from opposite side, while overtaking another truck came on wrong side and hit the scooter of the deceased Kailash Chandra as a result of which Kailash Chandra and Radheyshyam sustained certain grievous and simple injuries and during treatment Kailash Chandra died. In the claim petition, it was pleaded that the accident was occurred due to the negligence truck driver. 3. Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company filed its reply denying the contents of the claim petition and submitted that the accident was not occurred due to the negligence of the truck driver whereas it was occurred due to the negligence of the scooter rider Radheyshyam. At the time of accident, truck driver did not have the valid driving licence. Thus the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company is not at all liable to make payment of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues including the issue of relief. The claimants 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 22.01.2001 awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimants/appellants along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. Hence, this misc. appeal for enhancement of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has committed grave error of law while passing the impugned award as the Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of compensation. The learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. Hence, this misc. appeal for enhancement of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has committed grave error of law while passing the impugned award as the Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of compensation. The learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2,700/-. It is further argued that learned Tribunal has not applied the proper multiplier while computing the compensation. Counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of consortium and for loss of love and affection to the claimants. It is further submitted that amount of compensation awarded in other head is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. 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 the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and warrants no interference. 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, Churu. 9. As far as the monthly income of the deceased Kailash Chandra is concerned, the claimant Lal Chand (AW-2) in his statement deposed that his son Kailash Chandra was working at Kothari Marble on the post of Purchase Manager and his monthly salary was Rs. 3,500/-. In this regard, salary certificate was also produced as Ex-35. As per statement of Mr. R.C. Kothari (AW-5), earlier Kailash Chandra was working at Krishna Marble for about one and half years, thereafter he worked at Kothari Marble Private Limited. At Krishna Marble, Kailash Chandra''s income was Rs. 2,700/- per month and at Kothari Marble, he was getting salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month. But the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased Kailash Chandra as Rs. 2,700/- instead of Rs. 3,500/-. Since at the time of accident the deceased Kailash Chandra was working at Kothari Marble and was getting salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month, in the opinion of this court, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,500/- per month. 10. 2,700/- instead of Rs. 3,500/-. Since at the time of accident the deceased Kailash Chandra was working at Kothari Marble and was getting salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month, in the opinion of this court, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,500/- per month. 10. So far as question regarding deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma [Smt.] & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , has held that in a case of death of a bachelor 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Hon''ble Apex Court in para 32 of said judgment has held as under :- "Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third." 11. Thus, after deducting 50% on account of personal expenses, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,750/-. 12. So far as the applicability of multiplier is concerned, the learned Tribunal while computing the compensation has applied the multiplier of 7 taking into consideration the age of mother of the deceased Kailash Chand, whereas the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the age of the deceased while applying the multiplier. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 24 years which is evident from his secondary school examination certificate (Ex-36) and therefore, in the opinion of this court, the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied by the Tribunal 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 . 13. Hence the loss of dependency deserves to be recalculated as under:- 1,750 x 12 x 18 = 3,78,000/- 14. 13. Hence the loss of dependency deserves to be recalculated as under:- 1,750 x 12 x 18 = 3,78,000/- 14. The compensation awarded under other heads to the claimants does not call for any interference. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and while modifying the judgment and award dated 20.01.2001, the claimants are held to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,78,000/-instead of Rs. 1,80,000/- on account of loss of dependency. The amount of compensation awarded to the claimants under other heads by way of impugned award does not call for any interference. 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 i.e. 04.01.1994 till realisation.