Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1537 (RAJ)

Gyarsi Devi Pareek v. Banshidhar Saini

2019-05-16

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J. Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same accident, hence they are decided by this common order. 2. Appellants have filed these two appeals challenging the award dated 1.3.2011 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) - cum - Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Sikar (for short “the Tribunal”) seeking enhancement of compensations. 3. Brief facts of the appeal are that deceased Prem Kumar and his brother-in-law (winner) Rajender, both were coming on own motorcycle bearing No. RJ18-SB-3397 from Simarla to Kotri on 25.7.2007. Prem Kumar was driving the motorcycle and Rajender was pillion rider. When they reached near the agricultural field of Sultan Dhaka; at a distance at 2.30 PM a pickup Jeep bearing No. RJ 14-2G-3722 came with rashly and negligent driven by Banshidhar Saini and hit the motorcycle by wrong side by which Om Prakash and Rajender got grievous injuries. Prem Kumar died at the spot and Rajender Kumar died in hospital. Claimants sought compensation by way claim petitions in the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties, awarded claim of Rs. 4,93,000/- to the claimants in claim petition and Rs. 6,11,000/- to the claimants in other claim petition. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2921/2011 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal had erred in considering the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. The learned counsel submitted that the claimants produced salary certificate of the deceased issued by its employer - Vidhya Bharti Sansthan as Ex-13 which clearly indicates that at the time of death, he was getting Rs. 8,000/- per month as salary. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has ignored the evidence of Balwant Singh (AW-4) who was the Secretary of the Vidhya Bharti Sansthan. He also exhibited Income Tax Returns of Vidhya Bharti Sansthan marked as Ex-19 and Ex.-20. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal committed an error and irregularity for not considering these documents. He also submitted that the learned Tribunal emphasised on attendance register which was not produced. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that there was no reason for not considering the salary certificate and Income Tax Returns. He submitted that the learned Tribunal held that the deceased Prem Kumar was expert driver. He also submitted that the learned Tribunal emphasised on attendance register which was not produced. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that there was no reason for not considering the salary certificate and Income Tax Returns. He submitted that the learned Tribunal held that the deceased Prem Kumar was expert driver. So, the learned Tribunal committed mistake in computing the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal had erred in multiplying of 13 while calculating the compensation amount. The age of the deceased is indisputably at the time of accident as 28 year and it was proved by his driving licence. The learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 13 considering the age of deceased's mother that was totally wrong. He submitted for applying multiplier of 17 for calculating compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the interest @ 6.25% p.a. He also submitted that the Apex Court and the other High Courts award interest @ 12% p.a. So, in these circumstances, the rate of interest on compensation should be suitably modified. The learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance in Smt. Neeta w/o Kallappa Kadolkar Etc. v. The Div. Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, 2015 (1) Apex Court Judgtments (SC) 317, Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738 : 2012 (3) RLW 2748 (SC), ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Raj Kumar, 2015 ACJ 973 ; 2015 (1) RLW 146 and National Insuranc Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : 2017 (4) RLW 3248 (SC). 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is ? illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. So, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. He submitted that the Income Tax Returns were not duly proved I the appellants, so the learned Tribunal did not consider these document Awarding the compensation at minimum wages fixed by the Government does not suffer any infirmity and illegality. So, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance in Rajan v. Soly Sebastian, (2015) 10 SCC 506 . 8. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties, perused the impugned award and the material available on record. 9. So, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance in Rajan v. Soly Sebastian, (2015) 10 SCC 506 . 8. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties, perused the impugned award and the material available on record. 9. The appellants in their evidence exhibited salary certificate an Income Tax Returns - Ex.-13, Ex.-19 and Ex.-20. These documents were we proved by the evidence of Balwant Singh Balwant singh (AW-4). The learn Tribunal had committed an error in not considering these documents. The salary certificate and Income Tax Returns could not be brushed aside while determining the income of the deceased. The income of the deceased as per salary certificate (Ex. 13) is Rs. 8,000/- per month. The deceased is bachelor After deducting ½ from the total income on account of personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 17, dependency of the claimant comes to Rs. 96,000 - 48,000 × 17 = 8,16,000/-. The claimants also further entitled to receive an addition to 40% of the said amount towards future prospects of the deceased and the said amount comes to Rs. 3,26,400/-. The claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs. 40,000/- towards loss consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus claimants would also be entitled to receive Rs. 8,16,000 3,26,400 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000/- = Rs. 12,12,400/-. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2918/2011 10. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased at the time of accident, was working with Firm Shri Ram Auto Grinding Works as Mechanic. He was getting salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the salary certificate issued by the Firm mark as Ex. 18 in the learned Tribunal but the Tribunal did not consider it. The learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. The learned Tribunal had ignored the salary certificate. The claimant by way of evidence of Bhanwar Lal (AW-5) had well proved the salary certificate (Ex.-18) but the learned Tribunal has erred in taking considerate of minimum wages. So, the income of the deceased should be modified to the extent of salary certificate issued by the Firm Shri Ram Auto Grinding Works. 11. The claimant by way of evidence of Bhanwar Lal (AW-5) had well proved the salary certificate (Ex.-18) but the learned Tribunal has erred in taking considerate of minimum wages. So, the income of the deceased should be modified to the extent of salary certificate issued by the Firm Shri Ram Auto Grinding Works. 11. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the learn Tribunal did not consider the future prospects of the deceased and also err in calculating the rate of interest @6.25% p.a. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learn Tribunal did not commit any irregularity or infirmity in its conclusion. The salary certificate was not duly proved by the appellant. So the learned Tribunal, did not consider it by awarding the compensation at minimum wages fixed by the Government does not suffer any illegality. So, the appeal may be dismissed. 13. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties, perused the impugned award and the material available on record. 14. The appellants in their evidence exhibited the income certificate (Ex.-18). It was well proved by the evidence of Bhanwar Lal (AW-5). The learned Tribunal had committed an error in not considering this document. As per salary certificate, the deceased income is Rs. 8,000 × 12 = 96,000/-. After deducting ? from the total income on account of personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 16, dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 96,000 - 32,000 × 16 = 10,24,000/-. The claimants also further entitled to receive an addition to 40% of the said amount towards future prospects of the deceased and the said amount comes to Rs. 4,09,600/-. The claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus claimants would also be entitled to receive Rs. 10,24,000 + 4,09,600 + 40,000 + 15,000 = Rs. 14,88,600/-. 15. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned award dated 1.3.2011 is modified to the extent that claimants in appeal No. 2921/2011 would be entitled to Rs. 12,12,400/- by way of compensation instead of Rs. 4,93,000/- and the claimants in Appeal No. 2918/2011 would be entitled to Rs. 14,88,600/- instead of Rs. 6,11,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Other terms and conditions of the award shall remain unchanged.