Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2573 (RAJ)

Surendra Kaur v. Kuljeet Singh

2022-10-11

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ’the Act of 1988’) against the judgment and award dated 10.02.2009 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sambhar Lake, District-Jaipur (for short ’the Tribunal’) in claim case No. 313/92 by which the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants was allowed and an amount of Rs. 93,600/-has been awarded to them as compensation. 2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants appellants awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 93,600/- under various heads in favour of the claimants appellants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of accident and he was doing the job of driver. Counsel submits that while deciding the claim petition, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was 40% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and 60% contributory negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1. Counsel submits that while determining the loss of income a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,56,000/- was granted and after deducting the 40% amount towards contributory negligence of the deceased an order was passed granting compensation of Rs. 93,600/- to the claimants-appellants under the loss of income. Counsel submits that the job of the driver falls within the purview of skilled labour as per the Circular/Notification issued by the Department of Labour, Government of Rajasthan and the minimum wages of the skilled labour was Rs. 25/- per day at the time of accident which occurred on 23.10.1989. Counsel submits that while assessing the loss of income, the Tribunal should have treated the minimum wages of the deceased as Rs. 25/- but instead of doing so a lump sum amount has been determined without any basis. Counsel submits that even under the conventional head a very petty amount has been awarded. Counsel submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the claimants are entitled to get a lump sum amount of Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional heads. Counsel submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the claimants are entitled to get a lump sum amount of Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional heads. He therefore, prays that re-computation of the award in the present case may be done in view of the submissions made hereinabove. 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that while deciding the claim petition of the claimants appellants, the Tribunal has correctly taken into consideration the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment and award dated 10.02.2009 does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 10.02.2009 as well as the other documents available on the record. 6. Admittedly, the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident and he was the driver who falls within the purview of skilled labour and the minimum wages at the relevant time was Rs. 25/- per day but the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the lump sum income of the deceased without any basis. The claimants are entitled to get the compensation under the head of loss of income on the basis of minimum wages of the deceased. Apart from the above, claimants are also entitled to get a lump sum amount of Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional head in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). 7. Thus, the award is re-computed as under:- Monthly Income Rs. 25x30= Rs.750/- Annual income Rs.750/- x12= Rs.9,000/- per annum Deduction 1/3rd Rs. 9,000-Rs. 3,000/-= Rs. 6,000/- Multiplier to be applied 18 Rs. 6,000x18=1,08,000/- 40% towards Future Prospects Rs. 1,08,000 + Rs. 43,200 = Rs. 1,51200/- Add general expenses (conventional) Rs. 70,000/- Total compensation awardable Rs. 151200+70000 Rs. 2,21,200/- Deduct 40% (Contributory negligence) Rs. 2,21,200- Rs. 88,480 = Rs. 1,32,720/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,32,720-Rs. 93,600/- = Rs. 39,120/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 39,120/- 8. Thus, the amount of Rs. 39,120/- is enhanced in the present case. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 151200+70000 Rs. 2,21,200/- Deduct 40% (Contributory negligence) Rs. 2,21,200- Rs. 88,480 = Rs. 1,32,720/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,32,720-Rs. 93,600/- = Rs. 39,120/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 39,120/- 8. Thus, the amount of Rs. 39,120/- is enhanced in the present case. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 39,120/-in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 10.02.2009 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made. 9. The learned Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced amount of compensation into the Saving Bank Account of the appellants-claimants. 10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 11. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 12. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Court forthwith.