Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2414 (RAJ)

Rukma Devi v. Nemi Chand

2017-11-03

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 9.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta (‘the Tribunal’) whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,35,872/- as compensation along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 15.10.2015. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants, wife and major children, of one Mohan Lal with the averments that on 3.6.2015 Mohan Lal was sitting near the shop of Prem Ji when the offending Trailer, being driven rashly and negligently, struck said Mohan Lal, resulting in his death. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 49,56,000/- was claimed. 3. The Tribunal, while assessing the quantum of compensation came to the conclusion that the deceased was aged 70 years and applied the multiplier of 5 in terms of judgment in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The claim of claimants that deceased used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month in absence of documentary proof was not accepted and minimum wages for an unskilled workman were applied and his income was assessed at Rs. 4912/- per month, 1/5th amount towards personal expenses was deducted and a sum of Rs. 2,35,872/- was awarded towards loss of income, Rs. 25,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium, Rs. 25,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs. 50,000/- to the children towards loss of love, affection and guidance and in all a sum of Rs. 3,35,872/- was awarded. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation inasmuch as the income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/- per month, whereas, income at Rs. 4,912/- p.m. only has been assessed by the Tribunal treating the deceased as unskilled workman, which is not justified in the circumstances of the case. Further submissions were made that the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation towards loss of consortium and love & affection, which amount also deserves to be enhanced. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 6. The principles for determination of compensation have now been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014, decided on 31.10.2017. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 6. The principles for determination of compensation have now been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014, decided on 31.10.2017. In para 61, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as under: “61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- (i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced, hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced, hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 7. In view of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be inadequate so as to require interference in the present appeal. 8. The Tribunal has deducted 1/5th amount only towards personal expenses, whereas, claimants nos. 2 to 11 are all major children of the deceased inasmuch as appellant No. 2 Chandmal is aged 57 years and youngest child Gajanand is aged 28 years and in view thereof, deduction appears to be low for the personal expenses, which takes care of the plea raised by the appellant in questioning the judgment impugned for treating a 70 years old person as an unskilled workman. 9. Further, the award of compensation towards funeral expenses and amount awarded to children for love & affection also is on the higher side/beyond the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 10. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.