Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2605 (RAJ)

Heera Singh v. Shivsharan Agarwal

2022-10-14

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2293/2014:- 1. Heard on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Application stands allowed for the reasons stated therein. 3. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. With the consent of the parties, the arguments have been heard, at this stage. 5. Both these appeals have been submitted against the judgment and award dated 10.01.2013 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Khetri, Rajasthan (for short ’the Tribunal’) in claim case No.138/2010, by which the claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed and the Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.8,33,016/- to the claimants with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the claim petition. It has been further directed that if the amount of compensation not paid to the claimants within a period of three months, then the claimants were entitled to get interest @9% per annum. 6. Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that instant case is a case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. He submits that the deceased was negligent in driving the vehicle and the accident has taken place in the mid of the road and the Tribunal has seriously erred in deciding issue No.1 by holding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. Counsel submits that while assessing the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased as Rs.6600/-, while the gross pay of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs.5871/-. 7. Counsel submits that the accident occurred on 25.09.2010 and the pay slip (Ex.46) for the month of September, 2010 of the deceased indicates that his salary was Rs.5871/- per month. He submits that the income of the deceased has been assessed on higher side. He further submits that the deceased was a trainee officer, even then the future prospects to the tune of 50% has been awarded, while the deceased was not holding a permanent job, so, the claimants are entitled to get future prospects to the tune of 40% only. He prayed that under these circumstances, the interference of this Court is warranted. 8. He prayed that under these circumstances, the interference of this Court is warranted. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants as well as the counsel for the driver and owner opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the Insurance Company. 9. Counsel for the claimants submits that the accident has occurred at the place A, which is extreme left side of the road and the driver i.e. respondent No. 2 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, who caused the accident and thereafter, took the deceased and his vehicle to the place (Marked B) i.e. 10 feet away from the place of accident. While deciding issue No.1, the Tribunal has held that the accident has occurred solely because of negligent driving of respondent No.2. He submits that the deceased was appointed on the post of Attendant-cum-Technician at Steel Authority of India Limited at Bhilai and at the time of his accident, his monthly salary was rs.6600/- per month. Out of which, he was getting Rs.5871/- per month in hand and rest of the amount was deducted under various heads by the department and as the Steel Authority of India Limited is a Government of India Undertaking, the Tribunal has rightly considered the deceased as a permanent salaried person and has rightly granted future prospects to the tune of 50%. 10. He further submits that at the time of accident, the deceased was 27 years of age but the Tribunal was not right in applying the multiplier of 13 looking to the average age of the parents of the deceased. He submits that in the light of 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 multiplier of 17 should have been applied. Learned counsel therefore prayed that under these circumstances, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 11. Heard the rival submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. This fact is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 25.09.2010. 11. Heard the rival submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. This fact is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 25.09.2010. Perusal of the site plan Ex.7 indicates that, Mark A is the place where the accident has occurred, which is the extreme left side of the road and by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the respondent No.2 (driver) has caused the accident and thereafter, he took the deceased and his vehicle 10 feet away from the place of accident. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed an error while deciding issue No.1 by holding that the accident has occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. 13. Perusal of the pay slips of the deceased, which are available on record shows that the basis salary of the deceased was Rs.6600/- per month and after making all necessary deductions from the salary, net pay of Rs.4720/- was paid to the deceased by the department at the time of his accident. Since the deceased was working as a trainee on the post of Attendant-cum-Technician with Steel Authority of India Ltd. at Bhilai, hence, his services cannot be treated as self-employed and the Tribunal has not committed an error in considering his income as Rs.6600/- per month and by treating his services as permanent. 14. But the Tribunal was not right in applying the multiplier of 13, looking to the average age of parents of the deceased, while the deceased was 27 years of age at the time of accident and multiplier of 17 is required to be applied in view of the judgment delivered in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 15. Thus, the award is recomputed as under:- Annual income including future prospects 50% and after deducing personal expenses as assessed by the tribunal Rs.59,400/- Multiplier to be applied 17 =Rs.10,09,800/- Loss of income as determined by the tribunal Rs.7,77,200/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 10,09,800/- -Rs.7,77,200/-=Rs.2,32,600/- 16. Hence, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed and the claimants would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs.2,32,600/-. 17. 10,09,800/- -Rs.7,77,200/-=Rs.2,32,600/- 16. Hence, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed and the claimants would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs.2,32,600/-. 17. While passing the award, the Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company, in case the amount of compensation is not paid to the claimants within a period of three months, then the claimants would be entitled to get 9% interest from the date of filing the petition. 18. Since, this appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company within the statutory period of limitation, hence, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay interest @9%. It is made clear that the amount of compensation be paid to claimants with interest @6%. The enhanced amount also shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual payment is made. 19. The appeal filed by the Insurance company is also partly allowed. 20. The Insurance Company is directed to pay additional amount of Rs.2,32,600/- 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. 21. The learned Tribunal shall disburse Rs. 50,000/- in the Saving Bank Account of the claimants 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 claimants on monthly basis. 22. Both the appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. 23. All pending application(s) stand disposed of. 24. Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.