Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1339 (RAJ)

Kanku v. Kana Ram

2022-04-27

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants- appellants against the judgment and award dated 22.07.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge No.2), Beawar, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.197/14 (441/13) whereby an amount of Rs.3,50,700- was awarded as compensation on account of death of Chimman Singh in the accident occurred on 07.10.2013. 2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants-appellants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,700- under various heads in favour of the claimants-appellants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was of 64 years at the time of accident and as per the salary certificate produced before the Tribunal his monthly salary was Rs.7976/- per month, but without any basis, the Tribunal has determined the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.7101/-. Learned counsel further submitted that the salary of the deceased should have been treated and considered as Rs.7976/- per month. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal while passing the award, has erred in deducting 1/2 as personal expenses of the deceased while as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , the deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/4th as the claimants/dependants were five in number. Counsel further submitted that no amount towards future prospects has been awarded and therefore, he prays that recomputation of the award may be done in the present case in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimants-appellants has rightly taken into consideration all the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of the evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment dated 22.07.2016 does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimants-appellants has rightly taken into consideration all the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of the evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment dated 22.07.2016 does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that as per Pay Slip (Ex.10A) submitted on record of the Tribunal, the basic salary of the deceased was Rs.3945/- and the dearness allowance was Rs.3156/- and rest of the components i.e. OMA (Office Maintenance Allowance), CADA and FAC are not the components of the salary. The components of the salary would be Gratuity, Provident Fund, State Insurance and LIC etc., so, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in not calculating the OMA, CADA and FAC while calculating the monthly salary of the deceased. 7. Learned counsel, however, is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants with respect to deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses, as the same is in contravention of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 8. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone through the judgment dated 22.07.2016 as well as the other relevant documents available on record. 9. Admittedly, the deceased was 65 years of age at the time of his death and his basic salary was Rs.3945/- and his dearness allowance was Rs.3156/- and rest of the allowances i.e. OMA, CADA and FAC were the allowances of office maintenance conveyance etc., and it cannot be treated as components of salary of the deceased. So, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in determining the income of the deceased as Rs.7101/- per month. 10. So far as, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellants with respect to deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses is concerned, there should not be 1/2 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased as the same is in contravention. 10. So far as, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellants with respect to deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses is concerned, there should not be 1/2 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased as the same is in contravention. As this issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), if the dependants are 4 to 6 in number, then there should be deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal has erred in deducting the personal expenses of the deceased as 1/2. 11. So far as the second contention with regard to non granting of future prospects is concerned, claimants are not entitled to get any amount under the said heading as no law permits future prospects in those cases, where the age of the deceased is more than 60 years. Thus, the award is recomputed as under:- Monthly income Rs. 7101/- Annual income Rs. 7101 x12 = Rs.85,212/- per annum Multiplier to be applied 7 85212 X 7 = 5,96,484/- Less 1/4th towards personal expenses Rs.5,96,484/- - Rs.1,49,121 = Rs. 4,47,363/- Towards loss of estate Rs. 30,000/- Medical Bills Rs.21,468/- Total compensation awardable Rs. 4,98,831/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 4,98,831/- - Rs.3,50,700/- = Rs. 148131/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 1,48,131/- 12. In view of the above, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 1,48,131/-. Insurance company is directed to pay additional amount of Rs. 1,48,131/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual payment is made. 13. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. 14. All pending application(s) stand disposed of. 15. Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith.