Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2869 (RAJ)

Bharti And Ors v. Rambhan Das Chouhan

2019-11-19

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally. 2. This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants-claimants claiming the following reliefs: "a) appeal and claim petition may kindly be accepted and allowed with cost throughout; and b) Amount of compensation may kindly be enhanced suitably at least as claimed and may kindly be awarded to appellants with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of accident; and c) Any other relief, direction, which Hon'ble Court may feel just and proper looking to the facts that the case may kindly be passed in favour of appellants." 3. The unfortunate accident had happened on 29.03.1996 when deceased Satish Kumar Jhanwar, while riding the motorcycle, was struck by a Jeep bearing registration No.MXV 6041, causing injuries to Satish Kumar Jhanwar, and resultantly, he died during treatment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants vehemently submits that the amount of definite commission, which is indicated in the document Exhibit-2, ought to have been taken by the learned Tribunal as the indicator of the annual income and rather than that, the learned Tribunal has deducted 50% of the amount of commission on the ground that it has to be returned back to the customers and policy commission has to be utilized for other expenses, which the LIC agent undertakes to promote the policy in question. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants further submits that once the expenses to the extent of 50% were deducted for all purposes, then deduction of expenses of Rs.900 per month again by the learned Tribunal was contrary to law. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants also submits that the income tax return could not be submitted as they were misplaced between the wife of the deceased and father of the deceased as they could not keep the coordination, as required after the death of the Satish Kumar Jhanwar. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants further submits that the average income, which has been computed is far too below the documentary proof, and thus, the same ought to be raised. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants further submits that the average income, which has been computed is far too below the documentary proof, and thus, the same ought to be raised. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent however, submits that it is a matter of standard operation that a commission agent has to return part of the commission back to the customer, and thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the expenses. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that once it was an admitted fact that deceased Satish Kumar Jhanwar was an income tax payee, then not bringing the income tax return on record is a concealment, and therefore, adverse influence needs to be drawn. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the interest @ 12% p.a. on a much higher side and the same needs to be reduced to 6% p.a. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the average income per month derived by the learned Tribunal is in accordance with law and ought not to be interfered with. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court concurs with the opinion of the learned Tribunal that the commission is not a complete amount, which is received as a wage by the agent and is rather a cumulative amount, of which, the expenses and other facets of the business of the policy holding has to be tackled. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that out of the commission so received, the agent would accrue at least 50% amount on the expenditure for getting the policy holder engaged with the policy. 12. However, in the opinion of this Court, the monthly expenses should include 50% expenses and a separate deduction of Rs.900 per month, as deducted by the learned Tribunal, was not appropriate, and thus, Rs.900 ought to be added to the amount, which has already been arrived at by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has arrived at the monthly wage of Rs.5500 and after adding Rs.900, the monthly wage would be Rs.6400. 13. In view of the above, this Court directed both the parties to jointly submit the re-computation as per the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. The learned Tribunal has arrived at the monthly wage of Rs.5500 and after adding Rs.900, the monthly wage would be Rs.6400. 13. In view of the above, this Court directed both the parties to jointly submit the re-computation as per the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) AIR SC 5157 , while taking the monthly wage to be Rs.6400/- per month. The said joint computation as furnished by learned counsel for the parties before this Court, reads as follows:- Age of the Deceased 31 years Multiplier 16 Future Prospects 40% Personal Expenses Deduction 1/3 Monthly Income of the Deceased Rs.6,400/- Monthly Income after adding Future Prospects Rs.8,960/- Monthly Income after deducting Personal Expenses Rs.5,973.33/- Yearly Income of the deceased Rs.71,680/- Total Income after applying Multiplier Rs.11,46,880/- Other Conventional Heads Rs.70,000/- Total Award Rs.12,16,880/- Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs.5,10,000/- Enhanced Award. Rs.7,06,880/- 14. In view of the above and in light of the precedent law of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), the enhanced award of Rs.7,06,880/- is granted which shall be payable along with interest as already granted by the learned Tribunal, looking into the year period of accident. 15. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of.