Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2231 (RAJ)

Santosh v. Poonam Singh

2019-08-20

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present appeal is time barred by 217 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (Inward No. 33/2012) has been filed seeking condonation of delay. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay is condoned. 3. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is finally heard today itself. 4. The service upon the respondent No. 2 is dispensed with at the risk and cost of the appellants. 5. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants for enhancement of the amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran, District Pali vide Award dated 12.09.2011 in Motor Accident Claim Application Case No. 32/2006. 6. The present appellants preferred a claim petition on various grounds before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran, District Pali for grant of compensation. The reply was filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations in the claim petition. Thereafter, on completion of the pleadings the learned Tribunal framed the issues. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal decided the claim petition of the appellants and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,92,900/-, out of total award of Rs. 6,57,200/-, in favour of the appellants and directed the respondents to pay an interest @ 7.5% per annum on the amount awarded. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly argues that the learned tribunal has not considered the future prospects in the present case and therefore, no amount in the head of future prospects has been awarded. He, therefore, prays that the same is required to be computed in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.L.P. (Civil) Case No. 25590/2014 ( National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) ACJ 2700, 2017 4 JLJR 275 , 2017(4)P.L.J.R. 261. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute the proposition argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. 10. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the award dated 12.09.2011 is required to be recomputed in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & ors (supra) to the extent of adding future prospects keeping in mind the other factors taken into consideration by the learned tribunal being not disturbed. 11. 10. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the award dated 12.09.2011 is required to be recomputed in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & ors (supra) to the extent of adding future prospects keeping in mind the other factors taken into consideration by the learned tribunal being not disturbed. 11. The computation for adding future prospects which is required to be done in the present case is as under :- For future prospects :- 40% of Rs.3600/- (Income of deceased) Rs. 1440/- Rs. 3600/- + Rs. 1440/- Rs. 5040/- Amount to be deducted as spent on himself. Rs. 5040/- / 1/4th = Rs. 1260/- Dependence Amount Rs. 5040 Rs. 1260 = Rs. 3780/- 12. The age of deceased was 25 years therefore, a multiplier of 18 will be used. (I) Compensation due to death 3780 x 12 x 18 Rs. 8,16,480 /- (II) Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- (III) For the Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- (IV) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000 /- Total Rs. 8,86,480 /- Amount awarded by the Tribunal vide award dated 12.09.2011 Rs. 6,57,200/- Enhanced amount Rs. 2,29,280/- 13. At this stage, Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent New India Insurance Company Limited submits that although, in the Claim Petition No. 32/2006, the respondent New India Insurance Company Limited was not arrayed as respondent/non-claimant and the learned tribunal has, therefore, not awarded the compensation to the tune of 25% in favour of the appellants. Therefore, in the present appeal no compensation should be directed to be awarded against the New India Insurance Company Limited. However, he admits that all the other claim petitions arising out of the same accident were jointly tried by the tribunal, in which New India Insurance Company Limited was a party and the matter was decided against them before the tribunal after giving an opportunity of hearing. 14. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, it cannot be said that the compensation has been awarded without giving an opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the respondent - New India Insurance Company. The counsel for the New India Insurance Company was heard. The reply in the connected cases were filed on behalf of them. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, it cannot be said that the compensation has been awarded without giving an opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the respondent - New India Insurance Company. The counsel for the New India Insurance Company was heard. The reply in the connected cases were filed on behalf of them. The tribunal proceeded in the matter after framing of the common issues in all cases by a single order and therefore, the matter was decided by a common award, which is impugned in the present misc. appeal. Hence, the liability of 25% compensation to be paid on behalf of the respondent - New India Insurance Company cannot be said to be unreasonable. 15. Consequently, in view of the calculation made above, the appellants-claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs. 2,29,280/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the learned tribunal vide its Award dated 12.09.2011. The enhanced amount will also be proportionately compensated by the respondent No. 3 United India Insurance Company Limited as well as respondent No. 6 New India Insurance Company Limited in the same proportion as ordered by the learned tribunal. The appellants are also entitled to an interest @ 7% on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the application i.e. 03.02.2006. The enhanced amount be paid with an interest @ 7% per annum within a period of eight weeks from today. 16. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.