Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2441 (RAJ)

Goverdhan Lal S/o Bhura Lal Meena v. Mahendra Kumar S/o Somraj

2017-11-07

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against judgment and award dated 25.10.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh (‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,43,400/- as compensation to the claimants. 2. The Tribunal while awarding the compensation by taking the age of the deceased at 22 years, his income at Rs. 2,400/- per month and number of dependents being three has calculated the compensation as under:— Loss of income 1600 × 12 × 17 = Rs. 3,26,400/- Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Loss of love & affection to the parents Rs. 10,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 3,43,400/- 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the quantum of compensation in the present case now needs to be calculated based on the Larger Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014, decided on 31.10.2017, wherein, Supreme Court has laid down the parameters for award of compensation. 4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) 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. 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. (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.” 5. In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the compensation is required to be calculated by applying a multiplier of 18 instead of 17 and by adding 40% of the income towards future prospects as under : Loss of income 1600+640 = 2240 × 12 × 18 = Rs. 4,83,840/- Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 5,53,840/- 6. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 5,53,840 - 3,43,400= Rs. 2,10,440/-. The claimants would also be entitled to interest on the said enhanced amount @ 7% per annum from the date of application. 7. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 25.10.2008 is modified to the extent that claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 5,53,840/- instead of Rs. 3,43,400/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 2,10,440/-. The claimants would also be entitled to interest on the said enhanced amount @ 7% per annum from the date of application. 7. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 25.10.2008 is modified to the extent that claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 5,53,840/- instead of Rs. 3,43,400/- as awarded by the Tribunal. On the enhanced amount of compensation, the claimants would be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till the date of actual payment. The compensation shall be paid in the saving bank accounts of the claimants in a manner that a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- alongwith interest would be paid to Shri Goverdhan Lal & Smt. Durga equally and Rs. 1,00,440/- to Smt. Bhuri Bai alongwith interest. The amount of compensation be deposited by both the respondent Insurance Companies equally 50:50 within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment.