Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1919 (RAJ)

New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sushila

2018-09-13

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2018
JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, C.J. - Only contention argued in the appeal is that the computation of the wages of the deceased named Devilal is fundamentally wrong. Thus, I note relevant evidence to decide the said contention. 2. Devilal died as a result of accident on 21.09.2001. The offending vehicle, a jeep, was insured with the appellant. The wife of the deceased, a minor son, a minor daughter and parents of the deceased were the claimants. As per the claim petition the deceased was gainfully employed in Kuwait and was earning 100 Dinars per month. By working overtime he used to earn between 20 to 30 Dinars. Converted into Indian rupees his income was Rs. 16,500/-. He used to spend V on him and remaining Rs. 11,500/- was sent to the family. Age of the deceased being 30 years, it was pleaded that he could work for another 45 years. Compensation claimed was Rs. 11,500X12X45=62,10,000/-. Towards loss of consortium for the wife, love and affection for the children and the parents Rs. 1, 50,000/- in addition was claimed. 3. At the trial the claimants proved Ex.16 i.e. passport of the deceased issued on 20.07.1989 and valid up till 19.07.1999. From the same it is established that for the first time having left for Kuwait in the year 1992 the deceased was working in Kuwait lastly till year 1998. 4. Photocopy of the passport renewed on 28.06.1999 with expiry date 27.06.2009 was filed but unfortunately could not be proved. 5. The claimants had to establish that the deceased was working in Kuwait and was on visit to India met with an unfortunate accident in which he died. 6. Regretfully, the counsel for the claimants was negligent by not proving the renewed passport issued. He filed a photocopy but did not prove the same. However, fortunately for the claimants Ex.-17 was proved. The same is a compendium of three documents. First, a boarding pass issued by Jet Airways, the date is hazy but the month is July, 2000. The boarding pass shows that the deceased took a flight from Jaipur to Ahmadabad. The third part of Ex.-17 is a ticket issued by the Kuwait Airways showing the deceased to be passenger in a flight from Ahmadabad to Mumbai and thereon to Kuwait on 31.07.2000. 7. The boarding pass shows that the deceased took a flight from Jaipur to Ahmadabad. The third part of Ex.-17 is a ticket issued by the Kuwait Airways showing the deceased to be passenger in a flight from Ahmadabad to Mumbai and thereon to Kuwait on 31.07.2000. 7. There is thus credible evidence that the deceased had a job in Kuwait and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the claimants that he was working in Kuwait and was in India for a short visit when the unfortunate accident took place. 8. On the income of the deceased, work permit Ex.-14 issued on 15.09.1993 was proved. The work permit records the name of the owner as Tarikham Jaedi Ali Seman. It records permission to work in Kuwait for two years. It records that the owner would be paying salary of 100 Dinars to the workman. An un-exhibited work permit issued by the State of Kuwait on 27.10.1997 is also on the file the same shows that for the owner Samia Ghani Abdul Aziz Alkhaja, the deceased was permitted to work in Kuwait for two years on a salary of 100 Dinars. 9. The unproved work permit has been issued by the Ministry of Social Affairs & Labour, State of Kuwait. The learned Judge MACT has accepted the same and so do I. 10. Thus, there is an ample material to establish that the deceased was working in Kuwait and was receiving 100 Dinars per month as wages, if not more. II. While assessing the loss of dependency the Tribunal has firstly deducted 20% per month. The reason is not ascertainable but it appears to be that the deceased would be paying rent in Kuwait. From the balance V has been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier 17 compensation awarded post further deducting V is Rs. 14,68,800/-. 12. Deceased was aged 30 years and the multiplier therefore has to be 16 as the per the judgment reported as AIR 2017 SC 5157 National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. But I do not workout the compensation assessed for the reason as noted above the Tribunal has first deducted 20% from the monthly wages and from the remainder another V the deduction is more than 50%. As noted above the deceased was maintaining a wife, two children and parents. But I do not workout the compensation assessed for the reason as noted above the Tribunal has first deducted 20% from the monthly wages and from the remainder another V the deduction is more than 50%. As noted above the deceased was maintaining a wife, two children and parents. Even assuming that the deceased in Kuwait would be spending more than V on himself, at best the same would be 40% and thus, if I correct the multiplier the exercise would result in the same amount being determined as the compensation payable. 13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.