Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2353 (RAJ)

Sujata Saxena v. Rakesh Kumar

2022-09-01

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants (for short 'the appellants') against the judgment and award dated 17.02.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Case No. 1818/12 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants has been allowed and a compensation of Rs. 9,54,000/- along with interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants. 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 appellants as indicated above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was resident of Delhi, while he met with an accident in Rajasthan. Counsel submits that even if the income of the deceased is determined by applying the theory of minimum wages, then also, the Tribunal should have applied the minimum wages prevailing at that time in Delhi. 4. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ratan Lal Sonwal & Ors. v. Idu Khan & ors. Reported in 2021 (1) RAR 96 (Raj.). Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the impugned judgment needs suitable enhancement. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the appellants and submits that looking to the age of the deceased as 48 years, the Tribunal has granted 30% future prospects to the claimants, while as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , future prospects to the extent of 25% is applicable in the present case. 6. He further submits that the accident has occurred within the territory of Rajasthan, hence, the circular prevailing at Delhi, is not required to be applied in the present case. However, he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the appellants with respect to recomputation of the award in the present case in the light of the judgment of Ratan Lal Sonwal (supra). 7. Heard. 8. Considered the arguments raised by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award and the documents available on record. 9. 7. Heard. 8. Considered the arguments raised by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award and the documents available on record. 9. Admittedly, the deceased was 48 years of age at the time of accident and this fact is not in dispute that he was resident of Delhi. Though it has been pleaded by the claimants in the claim petition that he was working in Delhi on the post of Marketing Executive and earning Rs. 19800/- per month, but the Tribunal has not relied upon the same and by treating him as a labour, his monthly income has been determined as Rs. 5000/-. 10. This Court in the case of Ratan Lal Sonwal (supra) has dealt with the identical issue and granted minimum wages of Delhi to the deceased where the deceased was resident of Delhi by observing as under:- "Claimants had filed this claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Raghuveer in the motor- vehicle accident which had occurred on 15.04.2012. Claimants are the widow, children, parents and siblings of the deceased. As per the documents on record, age of the deceased was 28/30 years. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17' to work out the amount of compensation. Tribunal has rightly not considered Exhibit-13 (6 of 7) to determine the salary of the deceased as the person who had prepared Exhibit-13 was not examined before the Tribunal. As per Exhibit-11 Aadhaar Card of the deceased, it is evident that he was the resident of Delhi. Hence, the income of the deceased is liable to be taken as per the minimum wages fixed in Delhi. Learned counsel for the appellants has shown notification issued by Government of NCT of Delhi dated 8.10.2012 and as per the same, even an unskilled worker was entitled to get Rs. 7,020/- + Rs. 234/- (Dearness Allowance) = Rs. 7,254/- per month by way of minimum wages. Thus, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 7,254/- per month. Keeping in view the number of claimants one-fourth (1/4th) out of the said income was liable to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 7,254/- - Rs. 1,813/- = Rs. 5,441/- per month. Thus, the claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 5,441/- x 12 x 17 = Rs. 11,09,964/- by way of compensation. 7,254/- - Rs. 1,813/- = Rs. 5,441/- per month. Thus, the claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 5,441/- x 12 x 17 = Rs. 11,09,964/- by way of compensation. Claimants would be further entitled to receive an addition of 40% of the said amount towards future prospects of the deceased and the said amount comes to Rs. 4,43,985/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses." 11. The circular issued by the Department of Labour, Delhi Government, which has been placed by counsel for the appellants, clearly indicates that the minimum wages of unskilled labour at the prevailing time was Rs. 7020/- per month. 12. This Court has no reason to take a different view, which has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ratan Lal Sonwal (supra). 13. Further, looking to the age of the deceased as 48 years, the claimants were/are entitled to get 25% future prospects instead of 30% in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 14. Thus, the award is recomputed as under:- Annual Income Rs.7020/- x 12 = Rs. 84,240/- Add 25% future prospects Rs.84,240/- + Rs. 21060/- = Rs. 105300/- Multiplier to be applied 13 Rs.105300/- x 13 = Rs.13,68,900/- Less 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses Rs.13,68,900/- - Rs.4,56,300/- Rs.912600/- Total amount of compensation towards loss of income Rs.9,12,600/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income 6,76,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.9,12,600/- - Rs.6,76,000/- = Rs.2,36,600/- 15. In view of the above, the appellants would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 2,36,600/-. Insurance company is directed to pay additional amount of Rs. 2,36,600/- 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. 16. The learned Tribunal shall disburse Rs. 50,000/- in the Saving Bank Account of the appellants and the balance amount of the enhanced compensation be invested in FDRs in any Nationalised Bank for a period of three years and the interest accrued on the deposit shall be paid to the appellants on monthly basis. 17. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. 18. All pending application(s) stand disposed of. 17. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. 18. All pending application(s) stand disposed of. 19. Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.