Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2614 (RAJ)

Dhukal Singh v. Sanwariya Lal

2017-11-28

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT ORDER Banwari Lal Sharma, J. - Appellants-claimants preferred this misc. appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the impugned judgment and award dated 19.05.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Beawar in Civil Misc. (M.A.C.) Case No. 282/2007 by which learned tribunal awarded Rs. 4,40,000/-as compensation in favour of the appellants. 2. The brief facts of this appeal are that appellants-claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act before learned tribunal claiming compensation for Rs. 28,70,000/- for the loss suffered by them due to untimely death of Bhoma Singh in vehicular accident on 12.03.2007. 3. It was pleaded by the claimants that on 12.03.2007 deceased was going on motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-01-SD-8160 from Beawar to Pushkar When he reached near Kharwa Petrol Pump, a Van bearing registration No. RJ-19-1C-5950 suddenly came and hit the motorcycle. The Van was being driven by driver-respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner with high speed as a result thereof the deceased sustained serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. 4. It was pleaded that FIR No. 90/2007 was lodged at Police Station Beawar, Sadar regarding this incident and after investigation Police submitted charge-sheet against respondent No. 1. 5. At the time of the accident, deceased was 23 years old and was working as head waiter in Pushkar Resort, Ganaheda and his monthly salary was Rs. 6,000/- per month, claimants are parents, wife and minor son of deceased. 6. Learned tribunal after completion of trial, awarded Rs. 4,40,000/- in favour of appellants-claimants and against respondents-non-petitioner jointly and severely. 7. Assailing the award amount as inadequate, appellants-claimants preferred this misc. Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act before this Court for enhancement the award amount. 8. Mr. Shriram Dhakad learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. L.P. Singhal learned counsel for the appellants submits that the salary certificate was produced by the appellants before learned tribunal wherein monthly salary of deceased was clearly mentioned as Rs. 6,000/- per month and there was no occasion to disbelieve it, still learned tribunal disbelieved it wrongly. 9. He submits that future prospects have also not considered by the learned tribunal and wrongly applied the multiplier of 17 instead of 18. 10. 6,000/- per month and there was no occasion to disbelieve it, still learned tribunal disbelieved it wrongly. 9. He submits that future prospects have also not considered by the learned tribunal and wrongly applied the multiplier of 17 instead of 18. 10. He further submits that since there are four dependents on deceased still learned tribunal deducted V of income of deceased as his personal living expenses which should be 1/4, therefore this Appeal may be allowed and according to the spirit of Section 168 of M.V. Act, just compensation may be awarded to the appellants. 11. Mr. Amarnath Pareek learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed. 12. I have considered the submissions made at Bar. 13. So far as the income of deceased is concerned, since there is no cogent proof of income, therefore considering all facts learned tribunal assessed the income of deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month which doesn''t require any interference because the salary certificate submitted by the appellants-claimants before the tribunal has not been proved by examining the person who issued this certificate, therefore mere submitting salary certificate of a private person which is not a public document cannot be treated as proof without examining the person who issued the certificate, therefore learned tribunal rightly assessed the income of deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. 14. Since the age of deceased according to postmortem report Exhibit-4 is 23 years and which was taken by learned tribunal rightly. 15. According to Sarla Verma And Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the multiplier is applicable as 18 but learned tribunal applied only 17 which requires consideration. 16. Further, recently in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014 decided by the larger Bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court on 31.10.2017, it was held that if deceased is selfemployed 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, therefore considering the observation of Hon''ble Supreme Court applying the 40% of existing income of deceased as future prospects, the income of deceased comes out to Rs. 3,000 + 1,200 = Rs. 4,200/-. 17. 3,000 + 1,200 = Rs. 4,200/-. 17. Since, the dependents on the deceased are appellants who are four in numbers, therefore in the matter Sarla Verma And Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , Hon''ble Supreme Court held that when the number of dependents of deceased are 4 to 6 then deduction as personal expenses of deceased should be 1/4. 18. After deducting the living expenses of deceased considering the number of dependents as 1/4, the loss of income to appellants comes to Rs. 1,050/-. 19. The loss of income of deceased to appellant-claimants comes to Rs. 4,200-1,050 = Rs. 3,150/ . 20. Applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of income to appellants comes to 3,150 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 6,80,400/-. 21. Apart from this according to National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Ors. (supra) on conventional heads namely, normal loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively are also admissible in favour of the appellants claimants. 22. As such the total amount comes out as Rs. 7,50,400/- while learned tribunal awarded only Rs. 4,40,000/-, therefore appellants-claimants are also entitled to get the remaining aforesaid difference amount i.e. Rs. 3,10,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the date of filing of petition i.e. 17.04.2007. Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount i.e. Rs. 3,10,400/- with interest before the tribunal within eight weeks from today, failing which the interest on the enhanced amount shall be payable at the rate of 9% from today. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Record of the tribunal be returned with the copy of the judgment forth with.