Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 670 (RAJ)

Rai Singh v. Surendra Bagadi

2021-03-23

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Issue notice to the respondents in Civil Misc. Appeal no.1712/2017. Mr. L. K. Purohit, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.2 -Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC). 2. The present appeals have been preferred by the claimants as well as respondent- RSRTC assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 18.02.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Suratgarh, District Sri-Ganganagar in Claim Case No.87/2013(Computer No.256/2014) whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,54,000/- to the claimants as compensation on account of the death of Ugrasen in the accident which occurred on 04.12.2009. The appeals have been preferred on the ground of quantum of the award. The claimants have sought enhancement of the award, whereas, RSRTC has challenged the quantum of the award on the ground that the same is on the higher side. 3. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matters are being heard and disposed of finally by this common order. 4. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.2 is not correct as the income of Ugrasen at the time of the accident was Rs.10,000/- per month, whereas, the Tribunal has taken into account his income as Rs.4,500/- per month only. He further submits that mother of the deceased AD-1 Suman, in her statement stated before the Tribunal that her son Ugrasen was having a Marriage Palace and by management of the same, was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and after death of her son, the Marriage Palace has to be closed. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent failed to bring nothing contrary to the statement of AD-1 Suman on record and, therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the statement of AD-1 Suman. The Tribunal, therefore, should have taken into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned counsel further submits that other factors taken into consideration by the Tribunal for computation of the award are just and proper, therefore, the award should be recomputed while taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- and the same may be suitably enhanced. 6. Learned counsel further submits that other factors taken into consideration by the Tribunal for computation of the award are just and proper, therefore, the award should be recomputed while taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- and the same may be suitably enhanced. 6. Per contra, while opposing the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimants and pressing his contentions raised in appeal, learned counsel for the RSRTC submits that the Tribunal committed an error while considering the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month on account of the fact that the daily income of the deceased was taken to be Rs.150/- per day. Learned counsel submits that while recording the finding on Issue No.2 in Para-24 of the judgment, the Tribunal had taken note of the fact that no documentary evidence had been placed in support of the monthly income of the deceased. In these circumstances, the Tribunal should have taken into consideration the income of the deceased as per Daily Wages Rates notified by the State Government. He further submits that even if it is presumed that the deceased was a skilled worker, then also the daily wage at the time of the accident in the year 2009 was Rs.115/- per day, therefore, the Tribunal committed an error while computing the award and taking into consideration Rs.150/- per day as the income of the deceased. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal committed error while awarding the compensation under the head of loss of income in favour of claimants taking into consideration 50% of the income towards the future prospects of the deceased, and therefore, same is required to be recalculated @ 40% as per the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi,2017 SC 5157. He further submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal on account of the conventional heads is also contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). He, therefore, submits that the award may be recomputed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 18.02.2017. 9. He, therefore, submits that the award may be recomputed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 18.02.2017. 9. The finding on Issue No.2 is not correct as it was noted by the Tribunal that no proof of income was produced before it and therefore, the income of the deceased should have beencomputed taking into consideration the Daily Wages Rates prescribed/notified by the State Government at the time of accident i.e. in the year 2009. Admittedly, as per the notification, the Daily Wage Rates prevailing at the time of accident in the year 2009 was Rs.115/- per day for the skilled labour, therefore, calculating the amount of compensation in the present case by taking into consideration Rs.150/- per day as income of the deceased, is erroneous and incorrect. It is held that the income of the deceased should be calculated @ Rs.115/- per day and, therefore, the monthly income comes to Rs.3,450/- per month. The amount of compensation towards the loss of future prospects as per the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi(Supra) should be 40%. The other conventional heads should also be taken as Rs.77,000/- in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). The re-computation of award therefore should be as under :- For future prospects :- 40% of Rs.3450/- (Income of deceased) Rs. 1380/- Rs. 3450/- + Rs. 1380/- Rs. 4830/- Amount to be deducted as spent on himself. Rs. 4830/- / 1/2 = Rs. 2415/- Dependence Amount Rs. 4830 Rs. 2415 = Rs. 2415/- The age of deceased was 20 years therefore, a multiplier of 18 will be used. (I) Compensation due to death 2415x12x18 Rs. 5,21,640/- (II) Other conventional heads Rs. 77,000/- Total Rs. 5,98,640/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal vide award dated 18.02.2017 Rs. 8,54,000/- 10. In view of the discussion made above, the appeal of the claimants for enhancement has no force and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 11. The appeal preferred by the R.S.R.T.C. is partly allowed. The award dated 18.02.2017 is modified and it is ordered that the claimants are now entitled for an amount of Rs.5,98,640/- (Rupees: Five Lacs Ninety Eight Thousand Six Hundred Forty Only) as compensation. 11. The appeal preferred by the R.S.R.T.C. is partly allowed. The award dated 18.02.2017 is modified and it is ordered that the claimants are now entitled for an amount of Rs.5,98,640/- (Rupees: Five Lacs Ninety Eight Thousand Six Hundred Forty Only) as compensation. The R.S.R.T.C. shall pay the modified amount to the claimants-appellants within a period of six weeks from today. The compensation amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the same is paid. 12. It is made clear that the amount of Rs.5,98,640/- as computed in the above para shall include all the amounts deposited by the R.S.R.T.C. before the Tribunal including the amount deposited in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court on 25.05.2017 and the amount deposited in furtherance of Section 140 and/or proviso to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.