Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 557 (RAJ)

Savitri v. Shyopat Ram

2022-02-16

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2022
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - The instant civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimant/appellants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu (for short ’the Tribunal’) vide impugned judgment and award dated 04.07.2013 passed in Claim Case No. 155/2009, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 28,46,160/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant/appellants. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition with the averment that on 11.09.2009, when the deceased Chandra Shekhar Giri and Hajarimal were coming from Ratangarh after attending Shikshak Sammelan. When they reached near Malsar village, a Pick-up bearing No. RJ-10 GA 1501 being driven rash and negligently hit them and they both died on the spot. 3. Learned tribunal issued notices to the non-claimants. Non-claimants No. 1 & 2 filed reply to the claim petition and stated that the claimants have exaggerated the claim and also disputed the income of the deceased Chandrashekhar. Non-claimant insurance company filed reply and stated that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of deceased and that the vehicle in question was being driver in contravention of terms and conditions of the policy therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties vide its judgment and award dated 04.07.2013 awarded a compensation of Rs. 28,46,160/- in favour of the claimant/appellants. Hence, this misc. appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of compensation. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per evidence of the claimants, the deceased Chandra Shekhar was earning a sum of Rs. 20,331/- per month, therefore, learned Tribunal while calculating the compensation ought to have taken the income as Rs. 20,331/- instead of Rs. 19,600/-. Further, the learned tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any amount towards future prospects whereas, the deceased was 35 years of age and as per judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , future prospects of 50% ought to have been added. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no. reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , future prospects of 50% ought to have been added. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3/Insurance Company has opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the claimant/appellant and submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. Since the claimants shall be receiving pension in the sum of Rs. 9,500/- per month and the eligible claimant shall also be entitled for compassionate appointment, therefore, no case is made out for awarding any compensation for future prospects. 7. I have considered the submissions on behalf of the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment/award dated 04.07.2013 as also material available on record. 8. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, impugned award passed by the Tribunal reveals that the learned Tribunal while applying the multiplier of 16, awarded compensation in favour of the claimants/appellants. While quantifying the loss of income, the multiplier of 16 adopted for computing the compensation is justified in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma [Smt. ] & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 and case of Pranay Sethi (supra). However, so far as future prospects is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, the claimants are entitled to 50% in addition towards future prospects as the deceased was aged 35 years old and was in permanent job. 9. At this stage, it may be relevant to take into consideration the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and more particularly paragraph 59 and the sub paragraph 59.3 which is quoted herein below:- 59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. 59.2. As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. 59.3. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. 59.2. As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. 59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years." 10. The compensation awarded under the other heads is not liable to be interfered. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and while modifying the judgment and award dated 04.07.2013, in all the claimants are held entitled to get compensation to a sum of Rs. 13,90,080/- in addition to Rs. 27,80,160/- as awarded by the Tribunal for loss of income. The compensation awarded under the other heads is not liable to be interfered. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and while modifying the judgment and award dated 04.07.2013, in all the claimants are held entitled to get compensation to a sum of Rs. 13,90,080/- in addition to Rs. 27,80,160/- as awarded by the Tribunal for loss of income. The claimants will also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation.