Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 667 (RAJ)

Shiv Singh v. Dheer Singh

2020-10-01

RAMESHWAR VYAS

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement has been filed by the appellants -father and mother of the deceased Bhanwar Singh, who died in road accident on 13.03.1998, against the award dated 25.02.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No. 148/1998, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,40,600/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing application i.e. 02.06.1998.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and as per the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation: (2009) 6 SCC 121 , for the age group of 15-20, multiplier of 18 is applicable, whereas the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 14; no money has been awarded in the head of future prospects; the Tribunal has grossly erred in not awarding compensation towards consortium. 2. Learned counsel further submitted that the income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 700/- per month, whereas at the relevant time, the minimum wages prescribed for an unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled worker was Rs. 1144/-, Rs.1222/- and Rs. 1300/- per month, respectively. It was submitted that while assessing the income of the deceased, the minimum wages prescribed for workman should be considered by the Tribunal as per the facts and circumstances of the each case. 3. It was further submitted that compensation should be reassessed in terms of law laid down by the Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair. No deduction towards personal expenses has been made from the income of the deceased, hence, there is no justification for enhancement of compensation. 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has enunciated the following principles:- While determining the income, an addition of 40% of the established income should be made where the deceased is below the age of 40 years and is self employed. 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has enunciated the following principles:- While determining the income, an addition of 40% of the established income should be made where the deceased is below the age of 40 years and is self employed. Regarding the selection of multiplier and deduction for personal and living expenses, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) have been approved. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses have been fixed as Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively to be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. 6. In the present case, deceased Bhanwar Singh was aged 20 years at the time of accident and, therefore, as per the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of 18 prescribed for the age group of 15-20 is applicable. 7. The deceased was Khalasi in the truck by profession. There is no proof of income being received by him in lieu of his work. Learned Tribunal for calculating the loss of income of the deceased has taken Rs. 700/- per month as his income. The incident took place on 13.03.1998. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, so also the nature of work, it would be appropriate to assess loss of income on the basis of income equivalent to minimum monthly wages prescribed for semi-skilled worker at the relevant time and as per the notification of the State Government, minimum wages prescribed for a semi-skilled worker at the relevant time was Rs. 1,222/- per month. 8. Since, no compensation has been awarded in the head of future prospects, 40% of the annual income is to be added to the yearly income of the deceased. 9. Since learned Tribunal has not deducted 1/2 amount towards personal expenses, as per the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and the deceased being unmarried, 1/2 of his income should be deducted towards his personal expenses. 10. In the present case, compensation in the conventional head has not been awarded adequately. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 3000/- for transportation and Rs. 5000/- each to the claimants for loss of consortium. 10. In the present case, compensation in the conventional head has not been awarded adequately. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 3000/- for transportation and Rs. 5000/- each to the claimants for loss of consortium. As per the principles enunciated in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are also entitled to get Rs. 70,000/- in the conventional head instead of Rs. 23,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 11. In view of the material available on record and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants-claimants are entitled to get compensation in the following terms:- Monthly income Rs. 1,222/- Annual income Rs. 1,222 xl2 = Rs.14,664/- per annum Add 40% towards future prospects Rs. 14,664x40/100 = Rs. 5,866/-Rs. 14,664+5,866 = Rs. 20,530/- Less 1/2 towards personal expenses Rs. 20,530/2 = Rs. 10,265/-Rs. 20,530-10,265 = Rs. 10,265/- Net annual loss Rs. 10,265/- Multiplier to be applied 18 Loss of dependency Rs. 10265x18 = Rs. 1,84,770/- Add general expenses Rs. 70,000/- Total compensation awardable Rs. 1,84,770+70,000 = Rs. 2,54,770/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 2,54,770-1,40,600 = Rs. 1,14,170/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 1,14,170/- 12. In view of the above, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 1,14,170/-, which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation i.e. 02.06.1998. 13. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 25.02.2004 is modified to the extent that claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,54,770/- instead of Rs. 1,40,600/- as awarded by the Tribunal. On the enhanced amount of compensation, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application i.e. 02.06.1998 till the date of actual payment. The enhanced compensation shall be paid by the Insurance Company within a period of one month of this judgment. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced money through the joint saving bank account of the claimants.