Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1855 (RAJ)

Punam Devi v. Shri Dharampal

2021-09-27

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
ORDER 1. At the request of the learned counsel for the appellants, service upon respondents No.1 and 2 is dispensed with at his own risk and cost. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and decided finally. 3. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment and award dated 1.5.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh in Motor Accident Claim Case No.36/2014, whereby the learned Tribunal after framing of the issues, evaluating the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, awarded a sum of Rs.9,04,000/- in favour of the claimants on account of death of one Shyam Lal in an accident which occurred on 23.10.2014. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.4 is erroneous as it was brought on record before the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.600/- per day. Even the employer of the deceased, who appeared in the witness box as AW-5, submitted that the deceased was being paid Rs.600/- per day as he was a very efficient mason performing the construction work. He therefore, submits that while calculating the award, the Tribunal should have taken into consideration Rs. 18,000/- per month as monthly income of the deceased. He further submits that the Tribunal had wrongly taken into consideration Rs.4500/- as monthly income of the deceased while computing the award. Learned counsel fairly submits that the multiplier and other factors taken into consideration for calculating the award do not suffer from any infirmity. 5. Learned counsel further submits that no amount towards future prospects and on other conventional heads has been awarded to the claimants-appellants in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157. and the same is, therefore, required to be awarded in the present case. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal after proper evaluation of the evidence brought on record had rightly taken into consideration Rs.4500/- as monthly income of the deceased. He submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimants awarded a "just compensation" in favour of the claimants and therefore, the impugned award does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. He submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimants awarded a "just compensation" in favour of the claimants and therefore, the impugned award does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company is not in a position to rebut the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants towards loss of future prospects and other conventional heads and he therefore, fairly submits that appellants-claimants are entitled to get the amount towards future prospects in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi(supra). 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the impugned award and other relevant record of the case. 9. The finding of the Tribunal recorded on issue No.4 to the extent that the evidence brought on record was not sufficient and did not show that the deceased was not earning Rs. 18,000/- is not correct as the Tribunal had not given any reason for discarding the testimony of AW-5 Kalyan Singh. There is nothing on record which shows that the deceased was earning only Rs.4500/- per month and no reason whatsoever was given by the Tribunal while taking into consideration the amount of monthly income as Rs.4500/-. Since, it has come on record that deceased was an efficient mason performing the work of construction and was employed with AW-5 Kalyan Singh, therefore, he should have been treated as a "skilled labour" and wages being paid to a skilled labour should have been taken into consideration while computing the award. Thus, this Court feels that an amount of Rs.5434/- per month should be taken as the monthly income of the deceased as per the daily rate wage being paid to a skilled labour in the year 2014. 10. Admittedly, no amount towards loss of future prospects in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi(supra) has been awarded, thus same is required to be taken into consideration while calculating the award. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount awarded is required to be recomputed in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount awarded is required to be recomputed in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). The same is recomputed as under:- For future prospects :- 40% of Rs.5434 (Income of deceased) Rs.2173- per month Add: 5434/- + Rs.2173/- Rs. 7607/- Amount to be deducted as spent on himself. 1/4th Rs. 7607-1901 = Rs. 5706/- The age of deceased at the time of accident was 22 years, therefore, a multiplier of 18 would be applied. (I) Compensation due to death Rs.5706x12x18 Rs. 1232496/- (II) Conventional Heads (+) Rs. 70,000/- Total Rs. 13,02,496/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 9,04,000/- Enhanced amount Rs. 3,98,496/- 11. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, the appeal is allowed and the Insurance Company is directed to pay an enhanced amount of Rs.3,98,496/- to the claimants in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 01.05.2017 within a period of six weeks from today. The enhanced amount shall carry an interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal.