Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2075 (RAJ)

Kamli Devi Gurjer v. Ambuj Kumar Sharma

2018-10-08

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Prakash Gupta, J. - By way of present appeal the appellants have challenged the judgment & award dated 07.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh (in short, 'the Tribunal') in Case No.38/12/2016, whereby a sum of 3,06,282/-has been awarded as compensation to the appellants on account of death of Ranjeet Singh. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that a claim petition came to be filed by the appellants before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act against the non-claimants stating therein that on 31.12.2015 at about 05.00 p.m when Ranjeet Singh, husband of appellant No.1, was returning to home on his bicycle after completing agricultural work and selling milk, near village Gotha-ki-Chowki a motorcycle coming behind him which was allegedly driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1 Ambuj Kumar, hit Ranjeet Singh, on account of which he fell down on the ground and sustained serious injuries. Later on Ranjeet Singh succumbed to injuries on 14.01.2016. 3. Non-applicant No.1 filed his reply to the claim petition denying the averments made therein. As per him, the deceased sustained injuries by some other vehicle and he is not involved in any manner in the alleged accident and prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed. 4. Learned Tribunal after hearing rival submissions of the parties and going through the material on record, vide its impugned judgment dated 07.02.2018 while allowing the claim petition, awarded a sum of 3,06,282/- as compensation in favour of the appellants along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 08.02.2016. It was further directed that the amount of Rs. 50,000/-, already paid as interim compensation, shall be adjusted from the said amount. 5. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that first of all the Tribunal has grossly erred in considering the income of the deceased to be Rs. 4000/- per month whereas he was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month from agricultural work and selling milk and there was sufficient material on record to prove the same but there was no rebuttal of evidence on said point. It is further submitted that future prospectus have also not been taken into consideration while awarding compensation besides dependency of his wife and son. He also submitted that no amount under the heads of loss of consortium, pain and suffering etc. It is further submitted that future prospectus have also not been taken into consideration while awarding compensation besides dependency of his wife and son. He also submitted that no amount under the heads of loss of consortium, pain and suffering etc. has been awarded. He has therefore prayed that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the amount awarded as compensation may be suitably enhanced and accordingly the impugned judgment of the Tribunal may be modified. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while supporting the impugned judgment has submitted that there is no ground to cause any interference in the impugned judgment and accordingly the appeal may be dismissed. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance carefully gone through the impugned judgment so also the record. 7. It is not in dispute that deceased Ranjeet Singh died in a road accident and the cause of death was excessive internal bleeding and haemorrhage and neurogenic shock, as is evident from his post-mortem report Exhibit-7. So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, learned Tribunal has thoroughly considered this issue and observed that the appellants/claimants have claimed that deceased was about 48 years of age at the time of accident but in the FIR his age has been mentioned as 60 years whereas in Ex.NA1 i.e. Ration Card, his age has been shown as 65 years. Thus, the Tribunal, as per the evidence available on record, has rightly considered the age of the deceased to be 65 years at the time of accident. 8. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants claimed the same to be Rs. 18,000/- per month by doing agricultural work and selling milk, but the Tribunal has observed that as per the appellants the deceased was selling two drums of milk per day but in the ordinary course of nature a person must have some record to prove the same and apparently there is no such record and therefore the facts as mentioned cannot be accepted. Hence, the income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs. 4,000/- per month. 9. Hence, the income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs. 4,000/- per month. 9. In my considered view, this finding of the Tribunal is erroneous because as per the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant point of time, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 5,122/- per month instead of Rs. 4000/-. Further, since the deceased was having a family of three persons, therefore /rd of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and accordingly his monthly income is assessed as Rs. 3415/- (5122-1707). Now since as per the evidence available on record, the deceased was 65 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , multiplier of 7 would be applicable and as such the loss of income is assessed as Rs. 2,86,860/- (3412x12x7). 10. That apart, under the conventional heads, as per the latest pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , an amount of Rs. 70,000/- is awarded to the appellants which includes loss of estate, loss of love & affection and funeral expenses. 11. So far as medical expenses are concerned, in my opinion the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 42,254/- to the appellants as per bills submitted by them. 12. Thus, the appellants are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,99,114/-(2,86,860+70,000+42,254) as compensation on account of death of Ranjeet Singh. Since as per the Tribunal the appellants/claimants have already received Rs. 50,000/- as interim compensation, therefore, the remaining amount of Rs. 3,49,114/- shall be payable to the appellants which shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 08.02.2016, as already directed by the Tribunal. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment & award dated 07.02.2018 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove.