Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2931 (RAJ)

Udai Singh Rajput v. Avatar Singh Rajput

2019-12-03

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1. Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 2.9.2011 for enhancement passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (for short "the Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 839/99(180/93). 2. Brief facts of the appeal are that the appellants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal on 11.10.1993 stating therein that on 17.8.1993 at about 9.00 AM, deceased Jot Singh was going in Truck No. GRS-5547 in the capacity of its Khalasi. When the truck reached Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer, Jot Singh was checking air pressure of the tyre of the vehicle in question. At that time, respondent driver negligently started the truck and deceased Jot Singh got under the tyre of the truck and as a result of it he succumbed to death. At the time of accident," the deceased was working as Khalasi with M/s. Kataria Transport Service getting Rs.1,500/- per month along with daily allowances. The appellants have not been only deprived of the deceased but also from his love & affection and care and economic contribution towards family. So, the compensation of Rs.10,75,000/- be awarded 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 (driver and owner) had not appeared before the learned Tribunal and therefore ex parte proceedings were drawn against them. 4. Respondent No. 3 in its reply denied the averments of the petition and asserted that due to negligence of the deceased Jot Singh, the accident had occurred. At the time of accident, driver of the truck did not have valid and effective license. So, the claim petition be dismissed. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed following issues:- ^^1- vk;k fnukad 17-08-1993 dks Vªd la[;k&th- vkj-,l- 5547 ds pkyd foi{kh Øe&1 }kjk okgu dks rst xfr o vlko/kkuh ls pykdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh xbZ ftlds dkj.k tksrflag dh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ \ 2- vk;k izkfFkx.k] foi{khx.k ls #i;s 10]75]000@& dh jkf'k izfrdkj ds #i esa ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa] ;fn gSa] rks fdl&fdl foi{kh ls rFkk fdruh&fdruh jkf'k \ 2- v- vk;k oDr nq?kZVuk vizkfFk Øe&1 ds ikl ds okgu dks pykus dk oS/k o izHkkoh ykbZlsal ugha Fkk \ ;fn gka] rks bldk Dyse ;kfpdk ij D;k izHkko gS \ 3- vuqrks"kA** 6. On behalf of claimant, Udai Singh (AW-1) was examined and on behalf of respondent No. 3 - The New India Assurance Company Limited, Ajay Kumar Mehra (NAW-1) was examined. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned award dated 2.9.2011 is absolutely illegal and contrary to the fact that the learned Tribunal prescribed the cogent evidence that the deceased Jot Singh was earning Rs.1,500/- per month. The learned Tribunal had erred in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.1,200/- per month. So, the income of the deceased should be. considered as Rs.1,500/- per month instead of Rs.1,200/- per month. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal had not considered the future prospects. As per judgment of Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the future prospects should be considered. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal had erred in multiplier of 16. As per judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), the multiplier should be 18. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal had erred in awarding less amount towards love & affection and funeral expenses and it should be awarded as per decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). So, the appeal be allowed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality and infirmity in the award of the learned Tribunal. So, the appeal be dismissed. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties, perused the impugned award and the material available on record. 12. The appellants had not produced cogent evidence regarding income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month. So, the learned Tribunal had not erred in assuming the income of the deceased as Rs.1,200/- per month. 13. The learned Tribunal had not awarded the compensation towards future prospects as per the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 40% must be added to the actual income of the deceased while computing the future prospects. The learned Tribunal had erred in multiplying by applying multiplier of 16. As per age of the deceased, it should be 18. The learned Tribunal had not awarded adequate compensation for love & affection and funeral expenses and it should be enhanced. 14. 40% must be added to the actual income of the deceased while computing the future prospects. The learned Tribunal had erred in multiplying by applying multiplier of 16. As per age of the deceased, it should be 18. The learned Tribunal had not awarded adequate compensation for love & affection and funeral expenses and it should be enhanced. 14. Accordingly, after multiplier of 18, dependency of the claim comes to Rs.1200 x 12 x 18 = Rs.2,59,200. Half of the amount deducted as expenses on self comes to Rs.1,29,600/-. Thus, the net income of the deceased was Rs.1,29,600/-. 40% towards future prospects comes to Rs.51,840/-, for love & affection is Rs.40,000/- and for funeral expenses is Rs.30,000/- Thus the total compensation comes to Rs.2,51,440/-. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent of Rs.2,51,440/- instead of Rs.1,27,000/-. The claimants would be entitled to Rs.2,51,440/- by way of compensation instead of Rs.1,27,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The other terms and conditions of the award shall remain unchanged.