Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2778 (RAJ)

Puspha v. Mukesh Chandra Bhatt

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, Banswara vide judgment & award dated 27.05.2004 in Motor Accident Claim Application Case No. 52/2003. 2. The counsel for the appellants submits that on 24.12.2002 at around 05:30 P.M. deceased Sukhlal was travelling with his colleagues from Raina to Garhi in Jeep bearing registration No. RJ 03/C 1333. The Jeep met with an accident near Raiyana Water Tank in which Mr. Sukhlal died. 3. In these circumstances, a claim petition was filed by the appellants before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara contending therein, that the Driver of the jeep was driving the jeep rashly and negligently and, therefore, the jeep met with an accident resulting in death of Sukhlal. The respondent No. 3 Insurance Company filed a reply to the claim petition. 4. On completion of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues for adjudication of the claim petition. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal decided the claim petition of the appellants and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,05,000/- in favour of the appellants and directed the respondents to pay an interest @ 6% per annum on the amount awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the computation of the amount towards the monthly income of the deceased Mr. Sukhlal, is on the lower side as in the year 2002, a Painter was earning around Rs. 3,000/- per month. Besides this, he has also submitted that the computation of the award should be done in light of the judgment of the 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. 7. Countering the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amount which has been taken into consideration is just and proper and the computation has been done in light of the Law prevailing at the time of the decision by the Tribunal. 7. Countering the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amount which has been taken into consideration is just and proper and the computation has been done in light of the Law prevailing at the time of the decision by the Tribunal. He further submits that the monthly income has rightly been computed as the daily wage employees from 1999 to 2004 were getting about Rs. 68/- per day and in the present case the Tribunal has granted Rs. 75/- per day. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter. I am of the view that the amount of Rs. 75/- per day appears to be just and proper and since, there was nothing on record to show or suggest the income of the deceased, the amount arrived by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 2250/- i.e. Rs. 75/- per day for the person, who was doing the work of painting, appears to be just & proper. Since, there are four family members, of the amount is only required to be deducted as spent on himself. Since, no amount towards the future prospects has been added in the monthly income of the deceased, 40% of the income is required to be added towards the future prospects. Further, I am of the view that the award is required to be recomputed in 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.2250/- (Income of deceased) Rs. 900/- Rs. 2250/- + Rs. 900/- Rs. 3150/- Amount to be deducted as spent on himself. 1/4 of Rs. 3150/- = Rs. 787/- Dependence Amount Rs. 3150 - Rs. 787 = Rs. 2363/- The age of deceased was 35 years therefore, a multiplier of 16 will be used. (I) Compensation due to death 2363 x 12 x 16 Rs. 4,53,696/- (II) For the Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- (III) Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- (IV) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 5,23,696/- 8. Consequently, in view of the calculation made above, the appellants are entitled for compensation of 5,23,696/-. Since, the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Banswara vide order dated 27.05.2004 has already been paid, the difference of amount should be paid to the appellants. 40,000/- (IV) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 5,23,696/- 8. Consequently, in view of the calculation made above, the appellants are entitled for compensation of 5,23,696/-. Since, the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Banswara vide order dated 27.05.2004 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. 9. The present Misc. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.