Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 847 (RAJ)

Gordhan Lal v. Chhagan Lal

2022-03-10

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-claimant against the judgment and award dated 02.06.2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'learned Tribunal') in Case No. 765/2015, whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 11,11,000/- to the claimant-appellant on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 21.02.2015. 2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing both the sides, decided the claim petition of the claimant-appellant and awarded compensation of Rs.11,11,000/- under various heads in favour of the appellant-claimant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the age of the injured-claimant pleaded in the claim petition was 40 years and the same is mentioned in his injury report, X-ray report as well as permanent disability certificate. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the permanent disability certificate, claimant has sustained 80 percent permanent disability but the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the disability of the claimant as 50% only on the account that the Doctor, who prepared the disability certificate was not examined. Counsel further submitted that looking to the age of the injured, the multiplier of 15 should have been applied in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation: (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Learned counsel further submitted that the injured was a mason and he is a skilled labour and the wages for a skilled labour at the relevant time was Rs.197 per day, but without any basis, the learned Tribunal has determined the income of the injured as Rs.5000/- per month only, while it should have been determined as Rs.5910/- per month. Lastly, counsel submitted that no amount towards future prospects has been awarded and the same should have been awarded in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Learned counsel therefore prays that recomputation of the award in the present case may be done in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra). 4. : reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Learned counsel therefore prays that recomputation of the award in the present case may be done in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra). 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimant-appellant has rightly taken into consideration the factors while calculating the amount of compensation in the case after evaluating the evidence available on the record. Learned counsel further submitted that the judgment dated 02.06.2017 passed by the learned Trinunal does not warrant any intereference by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company, however, is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to re- computation of the award in the present case in the light of the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra). 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel at Bar and gone through the judgment dated 02.06.2017, as well as the other relevant documents available on the record. Admittedly, as per the claim petition, injury report, X-ray report and permanent disability certificate of the injured, his age was 40 years at the time of accident but without any basis, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 14 instead of 15. 7. In the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 15 is required to be applied in the present case while calculating the award. 8. Looking to the fact that the injured was a mason at the time of accident and the skilled labour was getting minimum wages of Rs.197 per day, at the relevant time, hence, the income of the injured is determined as Rs.5910/- per month. 9. Further, the amount to the extent of 40 percent is required to be added towards future prospects in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 10. In view of the material available on record, the appellant- claimant is entitled to get compensation in the following terms:- Monthly income Rs. 197 X 30 X 80/100 = Rs. 4728/- Annual income Rs. 10. In view of the material available on record, the appellant- claimant is entitled to get compensation in the following terms:- Monthly income Rs. 197 X 30 X 80/100 = Rs. 4728/- Annual income Rs. 4728 x12 = Rs.56,736/- per annum Multiplier to be applied 15 56,736 X 15 = Rs.8,51,040/- Add 40 per cent towards future prospects Rs.3,40,416 + Rs. 8,51,040 = Rs. 11,91,456/- Total compensation awardable Rs. 11,91,456/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 11,91,456 - Rs.5,46,000 = Rs.6,45,456/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 6,45,456/- 11. In view of the above, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 6,45,456/-, which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual payment is made. 12. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of. The enhanced compensation shall be paid by the Insurance Company within a period of six weeks of this judgment. The learned Tribunal shall disburse Rs.1,00,000/- in the Saving Bank Account of the claimant and the balance amout of the enhanced compensation be invested in any Nationalised Bank for a period of three years and interest accrued on the deposit shall be paid to the appellant on monthly basis. 13. Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith. 14. All pending applications, if any stand disposed of.