Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 406 (RAJ)

Videsh Kanwar v. Hasam Khan

2021-02-17

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal for enhancement of compensation has been preferred by the appellants-claimants against the judgment and award dated 10.07.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Jodhpur in Claim Case No. 02/2008 whereby an amount of Rs. 4,43,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded to the appellants-claimants on account of death of Phool Singh in the accident, which occurred on 14.08.2006. 2. A claim petition was filed by the appellants-claimants before the Tribunal stating that on 13.08.2006 at around 11.15 P.M., Phool Singh with Ugam Singh was traveling from Jodhpur to his village in the jeep bearing Registration No. RJ-19-TA-308, which was being driven by Ugam Singh. On 14.08.2006 at around 1.00 A.M., when they reached near the field of one Anoparam Meghwal located at Jodhpur to Jaisalmer National Highway, the non-claimant No. 1, the driver of truck bearing Registration No. RJ-19-1G-4699 driving it rashly and negligently hit the jeep driven by Ugam Singh, due to which Ugam Singh and Phool Singh sustained simple and grievous injuries, which resulted into death of Phool Singh on the spot. In these circumstances, the appellants-claimants claimed the compensation under various heads on account of death of Phool Singh in the said accident. 3. The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence and hearing the arguments of the parties, passed the judgment and award dated 10.07.2008 vide which an amount of Rs. 4,43,000/- was awarded as compensation under various heads in favour of the appellants-claimants. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants while assailing the findings on Issue No. 2 recorded by the Tribunal submits that the deceased Phool Singh was possessing the valid driving license authorizing him to drive the Light Motor Vehicle. He was pursuing the profession of driving the tractor, which was being plied in the different States including the State of Rajasthan. He was being paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as salary. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in computing the amount of Rs. 3,000/-per month as notional income of the deceased. He further submits that one Devi Singh, whose tractor was being driven by the deceased Phool Singh, appeared before the Tribunal as A.W. 2 and stated that he was paying Rs. 5,000/- per month as salary. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in computing the amount of Rs. 3,000/-per month as notional income of the deceased. He further submits that one Devi Singh, whose tractor was being driven by the deceased Phool Singh, appeared before the Tribunal as A.W. 2 and stated that he was paying Rs. 5,000/- as monthly salary to the deceased for the work of driving being carried out by him in the State of Rajasthan and nearby States also. He, thus, submits that the Tribunal has erred while computing the notional income of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- per month only. He further submits that in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & ors. reported in 2017/ACJ/2700, no amount towards future prospects of the deceased and requisite amount towards general damages have been computed in the present case. He further submits that since there are four dependents in the family of the deceased, therefore, the deduction to the tune of l/4th amount was required to be made from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenditures, whereas, the Tribunal has deducted l/3rd amount, which is incorrect. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation in favour of the appellants-claimants may be recomputed and enhanced suitably. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the entire evidence brought before it and the law prevailing at the time of passing of the award and thus, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is 'just compensation' in the present case. He further submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal with respect to Issue No. 2 are perfectly justified as no cogent evidence in respect of monthly income of the deceased was produced by the appellants-claimants before the Tribunal and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly computed the notional income of the deceased Phool Singh as Rs. 3,000/- per month. He further submits that even the monthly wages of the skilled labour was only Rs. 2,106/- in the year 2006 and therefore, the amount of monthly income assessed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. 3,000/- per month. He further submits that even the monthly wages of the skilled labour was only Rs. 2,106/- in the year 2006 and therefore, the amount of monthly income assessed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. So far as the other contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants are concerned, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company submits that the award in the present case may be recomputed in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the judgment and award dated 10.07.2008 as well as other relevant documents. 8. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal with respect to Issue No. 2 to the extent of computing the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month appear to be incorrect more particularly when there was direct evidence in the form of testimony of A.W. 2 - Devi Singh, whose tractor was being driven by the deceased Phool Singh, available on record. Devi Singh in his statement has stated that he was paying Rs. 5,000/-per month for the work of driving the tractor being carried out by the deceased Phool Singh. In such circumstances, there was no reason for the Tribunal to consider the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. The deposition made by Devi Singh in the examination-in-chief remained uncontroverted and unshaken during his cross-examination made by the respondent -insurance company. Therefore, it is held that the income of the deceased Phool Singh should be computed @ Rs. 5,000/- per month. 9. So far as deduction towards personal expenditures of the deceased from his income is concerned, since there are four dependents in the family of the deceased Phool Singh, therefore, l/4th share from the income of the deceased is required to be deducted instead of l/3rd share. The Tribunal has also committed an error in applying the multiplier of 17 in the present case as the deceased Phool Singh was 31 years of age at the time of accident and therefore, as per the age group of the deceased, the multiplier of 16 is required to be applied in the present case. The other factors which have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal will remain unchanged. The other factors which have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal will remain unchanged. Thus, the award is recomputed in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) as under :- Monthly Income Rs. 5,000/- p.m. Deduction towards Rs. 5,000/- - 1/4 = Rs. 1,250/- p.m. Amount spent on himself For future prospects 40% of Rs. 3,750/- (Income of deceased) Rs. 1,500/- Rs. 3,750/- + Rs. 1,500/- Rs. 5,250/- Dependence Amount (Rs. 5,250 x 12) Rs. 63,000/- The age of deceased was 31 years, therefore, a multiplier of 16 will be applied. (I) Compensation due to death Rs. 63,000 x 16 Rs. 10,08,000/- (II) For the Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- (III) For Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 10,85,000/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal vide award dated 10.07.2008 Rs. 4,43,000/- Enhanced amount Rs. 6,42,000/- 10. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the Judgment dated 10.07.2008 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that in view of the recomputation of the award done, the respondent - Insurance Company is directed to pay enhanced amount of Rs. 6,42,000/-(Rs. Six Lacs Forty Two Thousand only) to the appellants-claimants in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal towards full and final settlement of the claim, within a period of eight weeks from today. The said amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.