Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2777 (RAJ)

Mitha Lal v. Bheru Lal

2017-12-13

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants for enhancement of the amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand vide judgment & award dated 04.09.2001 in Motor Accident Claim Application Case No. 293/1999. 2. The counsel for the appellants submits that Prakash Chaplot who was son of the appellants, while going on his motor cycle bearing registration No. RJ1/M 8446 met with an accident with a Bus bearing registration No. RSJ/6311 on 27.04.1999 at around 10:00 P.M. 3. In these circumstances, a claim petition was filed by the appellants, who are mother and father of the deceased Prakash Chaplot on the ground that their son Prakash Chaplot died due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the above said bus. To this claim petition, a detailed reply was filed by respondent No. 3 denying the contentions raised in the claim petition. On completion of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues for adjudication of the claim petition. After hearing the counsels for the parties, the learned Tribunal decided the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/- in favour of the appellants and directed the respondents to pay an interest @ 9% per annum on the amount awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition. 4. Heard. 5. Assailing the judgment and award aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the multiplier in the present case should be of 18 as the age of the deceased Prakash Chaplot was 25 years at the time of the accident and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 11. The counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a Director in the marble factory and was monthly getting Rs. 7,000/-, therefore, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- computed by the Tribunal is very less, it needs to be suitably enhanced. Besides this, the deceased was a businessman and a hard working person, he was also earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from the brokerage in marble business, therefore, computing his income at Rs. 3,000/- is on a much lower side. The counsel for the appellants further submits that the learned Tribunal has also not taken into account the future prospects of deceased Prakash Chaplot while computing the award. 10,000/- per month from the brokerage in marble business, therefore, computing his income at Rs. 3,000/- is on a much lower side. The counsel for the appellants further submits that the learned Tribunal has also not taken into account the future prospects of deceased Prakash Chaplot while computing the award. The counsel for the appellants also submits that the amount which has already been awarded against the heading of love and affection is also not liable to be deleted or reconsidered as there is no cross objection or appeal, which has been preferred by the respondents. The appellants support their contention by the judgment of this Court in Sangeeta Parihar (Smt.) v. Smt. Suraj Parihar and Others in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1529/2003 and S.B. Civil Cross Objection No. 48/2010 decided on 08.04.2011. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Anil Bachhawat submits that in light of the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.L.P. (Civil) Case No. 25590/2014 National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 , 2017 (4) J.L.J.R. 275 , 2017 (4) P.L.J.R. 261, the heads under which the amount has been awarded by the Tribunal is required to be reconsidered while recomputing the award. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, in my view, as far as the multiplier of 11 as applied in the present case is concerned, the same is not correct in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court (Supra), the same is required to be enhanced to 18. The contention with regard to the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month for the brokerage is concerned, there is neither any documentary proof in support of the contention nor any income tax return has been filed. The amount of Rs. 3,000/- computed by the learned Tribunal appears to be just & proper. Since, the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants/appellants are the parents i.e. mother and father, 1/2 (50%) is only required to be deducted from the income computed. Since, no amount towards the future prospects has been added in the monthly income of the deceased, therefore, 40% of the income is required to be added towards the future prospects. 8. Since, the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants/appellants are the parents i.e. mother and father, 1/2 (50%) is only required to be deducted from the income computed. Since, no amount towards the future prospects has been added in the monthly income of the deceased, therefore, 40% of the income is required to be added towards the future prospects. 8. The award of the learned Tribunal dated 04.09.2001 is required to be modified in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court (Supra), the computation which is required to be done in the present case is as under :- For future prospects :- 40% of Rs.3000/- (Income of deceased) Rs. 1200/- Rs. 3000/- + Rs. 1200/- Rs. 4200/- Amount to be deducted as spent on himself 1/2 of Rs. 4200/- = Rs. 2100/- Dependence Amount Rs. 4200 - Rs. 2100 = Rs. 2100/- The age of deceased was 25 years therefore, a multiplier of 18 will be used. (I) Compensation due to death 2100 x 12 x 18 Rs. 4,53,600/- (II) For the Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- (III) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 4,83,600/- 9. Consequently, in view of the calculation made above, the appellants are entitled for compensation of 4,83,600/-. Since, the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Rajsamand vide order dated 04.09.2001 has already been paid, the difference of amount should be paid to the appellants. The appellants are also entitled to an interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced income from the date of filing of the application. The difference of amount be paid with an interest @ 7.5% p.a. within a period of two months from today. 10. The present Misc. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.