Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1119 (RAJ)

Geeta Devi v. Dev Karan

2022-04-06

MADAN GOPAL VYAS

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants being aggrieved of the judgment and award dated 6.11.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal' for Short) in M. A. C. T. Case No.74/2017, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,96,008/- to the appellants-claimants for the death of deceased Ramniwas. 2. The appellants herein are the legal representatives & dependents of late Ramniwas. The facts stated in the claim petition are like that on 22.01.2017, when the deceased Ramniwas alongwith his brother were going to their village Genau from Village Ratau to their Hotel Krishna on a motorcycle bearing No. RJ-37-SN-2040, then a truck bearing No. RJ-19-GC-0183 (hereinafter referred to as an 'offending vehicle' for short), which was driven by the respondent No. 1 (driver) rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle, resulting into grievous injuries not only to Ramniwas, but also, Om Prakash and ultimately, Ramniwas succumbed death. 3. In the claim petition, the claimants-appellants claimed that the deceased was of the age of 26 years' young and was doing the Hotel business and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Claiming a total sum of Rs.1,30,87,000/- the claim petition has been preferred by the claimants. 4. The learned Tribunal framed the usual issues regarding the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle of its driver being the cause of accident, the defences and objections raised by the non-claimants, the entitlement of the claimants to receive the compensation and if so, the quantum thereof. 5. The appellants-claimants examined 2 witnesses in support of the claim and also got exhibited 14 documents. On the contrary, the respondent-Insurance Company as well as owner and driver have not adduced any evidence in support of their case. 6. The Tribunal whilst assessing the award held the income of the deceased to be Rs.5486/- per month. A deduction of 1/4th of the income was made towards personal needs and expenses of the deceased. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was held to be 26 years. A multiplier of 17 was applied. A consolidated amount towards loss of love and affection and consortium to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- was also awarded to the claimants. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was held to be 26 years. A multiplier of 17 was applied. A consolidated amount towards loss of love and affection and consortium to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- was also awarded to the claimants. A sum of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,000/- were also awarded towards loss of parental consortium and estate as well as funeral expenses and the sum of Rs.11,615/- was also awarded towards medical bills. The appellants have thus, approached this Court by way of the instant appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Mr. S. K. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal committed a grave illegality while assessing the monthly income of the deceased Ramniwas to the tune of Rs.5486/- specially when the deceased was doing hotel business, from which, he was earning a total sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered future prospects of the deceased while computing the quantum of compensation. It is submitted that learend Tribunal ought to have grant 50% of the future prospects to the deceased in view of the settled law laid- down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, but the learned Tribunal has not awarded a single penny towards the future prospects to the appellant-claimants. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal committed a grave error in not accepting the evidence of the claimants regarding the income of the deceased. He submitted that the testimony of the claimants in this regard remained unrebutted and thus, there was no justification available with the tribunal to discard the evidence regarding the income of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that at the time of accident, the deceased was of 26 years' of age, which is very much clear from the documents placed on record and was doing hotel business. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded low compensation towards the head of consortium to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, but as per the ratio laid-down by the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the amount of compensation towards the head of loss of consortium is required to be awarded to the tune of Rs.1,00,000 to each of the family members-dependants. 9. Per contra, Mr. 9. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Dadhich learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. It was submitted that the amount awarded by the tribunal is already excessive and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 10. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the impugned judgment and award as well as record. The first argument, which needs to be addressed is regarding the income of the deceased. As per the claimants' case, the deceased was earning around Rs.20,000/- per month by doing Hotel business, however, the learned Tribunal has assessed the same to be Rs.5487/-. This Court fails to understand that a person having age of 26 years doing the work of Hotel Business, could earn a sum of Rs.5487/- per month as assessed by the learned Tribunal at the relevant point of time. 11. In view of what has been discussed above and looking to the age of the deceased at the time of the accident, this Court is of the opinion that in addition to the already awarded amount to the tune of Rs.9,96,008/-, the appellants-claimants are further entitled for lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/-. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta is modified to the extent that appellants-cliamants are also held entitled for further lump sum compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- in addition to already awarded compensation of Rs.9,96,008/-. The respondent no.4-Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- in the learned Tribunal within a period of two months from today, failing which, it shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. 13. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same in accordance with the judgment and award passed by it. 14. The record of the learned tribunal be sent forthwith for compliance of this order.