Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 626 (RAJ)

Sona Devi v. Nand Lal Meena

2020-09-04

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Prakash Gupta, J. - This appeal has been filed by the claimants appellants against the judgment and award dated 24.09.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in claim case number 311/2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 14,23,907/- as compensation in their favour. 2. Facts of the case are that on date 02.05.2011, deceased Nathulal alongwith Shree Narayan was going on Motorcycle to his village from Jaipur. When they reached at some distance from Dudli Mode, a Pickup Number RJ14 1G 9863 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, came there and hit the motor cycle, as a result of which Nathu Lal sustained injuries. He was taken to the hospital, but died later due to the injuries sustained. 3. A claim petition was filed by the claimants appellants claiming compensation on account of death of Nathu Lal. Written statement was filed. Issues were framed and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal vide its impugned judgment and award dated 24.9.2013 awarded a sum of Rs. 14,23,907/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal should not have applied split method of multiplier, but in the instant case, split method of multiplier has been applied by the Tribunal without any justification. He further submits that at the time of accident, the deceased was of 53 years 5 months and 11 days of age. In this way, about 6 years and 6 months service was left in his retirement. Thus, according to the age of the deceased, multiplier of 11 ought to have been applied in view of the IInd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicle Act, but the Tribunal wrongly applied the split multiplier of 9. He further submits that no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal under the head of future prospects, whereas in the present case, the deceased was a government servant and if he would have been alive, he had better future prospects, therefore his income should have been computed after taking into consideration the future prospects also. On this count, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified. 5. On this count, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified. 5. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: (I) Puttamma and Others Versus K.L. Narayana Reddy and Another, (2013) 15 SCC 45 (II) Sri K.R Madhusudhan & Ors. Versus The Administrative Officer & Anr.,2011 RAR(SC) 141 (III) Savita Sharma & Ors. Versus Union of India / Chandigarh Administration and Anr.,2008-09 Supp RAR 52 (SC) (IV) Smt. Sangeeta Gupta & Ors. Versus Shanker Lal & Ors. - S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4529/2018 (V) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. Versus Savitri Devi & Others S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 294/2019, and other connected cases. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Co. has opposed the same and submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference therewith is required by this Court. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Valsa - M.A.C.A. Nos. 161 of 2012 and 170 of 2013, decided on 15.1.2015, reported in 2015 (2) An.W.R. 748 (Ker.). 7. Heard. Considered. 8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.R. Madhusudhan (supra) in para 14 and 15 held that: "14. In the appeal which was filed by the appellants before the High Court the High Court instead of maintaining the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, reduced the same. In doing so, the High Court had not given any reason. The High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the Tribunal without disclosing any reason therefor. The High Court has also not considered the clear and corroborative evidence about the prospect of future increment of the deceased. When the age of the deceased is between 51 and 55 years, the multiplier is 11, which is specified in the 2nd column in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Tribunal has not committed any error by accepting the said multiplier. This Court also fails to appreciate why the High Court chose to apply the multiplier of 6. 15. This Court also fails to appreciate why the High Court chose to apply the multiplier of 6. 15. We are, thus, of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence on record, for having not considered the future prospects of the deceased and also for adopting a split multiplier method." 9. In the case of Puttamma and Others (supra), it was held by their Lordships of the Apex Court in para 34 that in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record, the tribunal or the Court should not apply split multiplier in routine course. 10. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal has committed an error while adopting the split method of multiplier. 11. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondents in the case of Valsa (supra) does not apply to the facts of the instant case for the reason that in the said case, accident took place on 2.11.2005 and after a prolonged treatment death took place on 14.12.2007. In the meantime, the application for compensation was filed by the deceased himself, whereas in the instant case, accident took place on 2.5.2011 and death took place on 3.5.2011 i.e. one day after the accident and the claim petition was filed by the claimants and not by the deceased. In the instant case, neither any reason has been given by the Tribunal nor there has been any evidence on record for applying the split multiplier. Thus, the Tribunal has committed illegality while applying the split multiplier. 12. Admittedly, at the time of accident, deceased was 53 years 5 months and 11 days of age and he was a government servant. According to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) AIR SC 5157 as also in terms of the IInd Schedule of the M.V. Act, for a claimant who was in the age bracket of 51-55 years, multiplier of 11 ought to have been applied. Further in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it has been held that where the deceased is in a permanent job (salaried) and is within the age group of 51-60, 15% of the salary is to be given towards future prospects. In the instant case, the Tribunal determined Rs. Further in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it has been held that where the deceased is in a permanent job (salaried) and is within the age group of 51-60, 15% of the salary is to be given towards future prospects. In the instant case, the Tribunal determined Rs. 17,790/- per month as income of the deceased. Thus, according to the aforesaid formula, the amount of future prospects comes to Rs. 2668.50/- per month (say Rs.2668/- per month). On this count, the total income of the deceased comes to Rs. 20,458/- per month. Accordingly after applying the multiplier of 11, it comes to Rs. 20,458 X 11 X 12 = Rs. 27,00,456/- annually. After deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses of the deceased, the amount comes to Rs.18,01,304/- annually. The claimants would further be entitled to receive Rs. 70,000/- towards other conventional heads. Thus, the total amount of compensation receivable by the claimants comes to Rs.18,71,304/- (Rs.18,01,304+Rs. 70,000). 13. Accordingly this appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and award dated 24.9.2013 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the compensation amount receivable by the claimants is Rs.18,71,304/- instead of Rs. 14,73,907/- (Rs. 14,23,907+ Rs. 50,000/- received by the claimants towards interim relief) as awarded by the Tribunal. Rest of the terms and conditions of the impugned judgment and award shall remain unchanged. The respondents / non claimants shall deposit the enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today.