Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1249 (RAJ)

Vinita v. Mahesh Singh

2023-06-16

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : Praveer Bhatnagar, J. This is the claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindauncity (Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Hindauncity) (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 19.09.2017 passed in M.A.C. Case No.07/2015. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.11.2014 at about 05:00 PM Vijay Singh alongwith his elder brother Gyan Singh, as pillion rider, on Motor Cycle bearing registration No. RJ34-SF-3724, was coming from Padampura to his village Longtipura; a Motor Cycle bearing registration No. RJ34-SF-9412, being driven rash and negligently, hit the Motor Cycle No. RJ34-SF-3724, resulting in Vijay Singh sustained injuries on his head and pillion rider Gyan Singh sustained injuries on his leg; thereafter Vijay Singh was taken to the Hospital, from where, he was referred to Sawaiman Singh Hospital, Jaipur and on 14.11.2014 during the treatment Vijay Singh died; an FIR was lodged at Police Station Balghat. 3. A claim petition to this effect was filed by the claimants for award of compensation. Notices to the claim petition were issued to the respondents, to which, the respondents contested the claim petition by filing reply and denied the averments contained in the claim petition. 4. On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal famed as many as five issued and recorded the evidence adduced by the parties. On behalf of claimants Tejpal himself got examined as AW-1 and Mahendra Singh as AW-2 and Sugar Singh as AW-3 were examined and certain documentary were exhibited as Exhibits-1 to 27. 5. On the other hand, respondent Insurance Company did not produce any evidence and driver of the offending vehicle respondent No.1 was examined as NAW-1. 6. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, vide judgment and award dated 19.09.2017 while partly allowing the claim petition has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,59,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellants. 7. The Tribunal on scrutiny of the entire evidence led before held that deceased Vijay Singh died due to injuries suffered in the motor accident on 12.11.2014 and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. As the offending vehicle, on the date of the accident, was insured with the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 8. As the offending vehicle, on the date of the accident, was insured with the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 8. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and by applying a multiplier of 17 computed the compensation of Rs.6,12,000/- towards the loss of income and awarded a sum of Rs.7,59,000/-, the break up of which is as under:- Loss of Income Rs.6,12,000/- Funeral Expenses including transport charges Rs.12,000/- Consortium to Legal Heirs (All the claimants @ Rs. 20,000/- each) Rs.1,20,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation Rs.7,59,000/- 9. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on the following grounds: (A) The Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the injured, whereas, the injured was earning Rs.14,000/- per month. (B) The interest awarded to the tune of 6% per annum is inadequate and the claimants are liable to get 18% interest on the awarded money. (C) Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the Tribunal did not award any compensation under the head of future prospects and loss of estate and further the compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium and funeral expenses is inadequate. 10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company justified the compensation awarded to the appellants under various heads and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Analysis:- Assessment of Income 11. On the above fact, the claimants failed to prove his monthly income as Rs.14,000/- per month. Apart from oral evidence, no credible proof was produced indicating his income as Rs.14,000/- per month. 12. In the absence of income proof, the Tribunal considered him a driver and computed his monthly salary as Rs.4,000/- per month after applying some guess work. The Tribunal deducted 1/4th towards own expenses and applying multiplier of 17 awarded Rs.6,12,000/- under the head of loss of future income. 13. The above view of the Tribunal is not based upon any cogent evidence. In my view, the Tribunal ought to have considered the Notification issued by the Labour Department for assessing the monthly income of the deceased. 14. 13. The above view of the Tribunal is not based upon any cogent evidence. In my view, the Tribunal ought to have considered the Notification issued by the Labour Department for assessing the monthly income of the deceased. 14. As per the Labour Department Notification issued from time to time under section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act drivers plying light motor vehicles and heavy motor vehicles fall in the category of Skilled Labour and at the relevant time the minimum wages for such class was Rs.5,434/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.5,434/- per month. Assessment of loss of earnings:- 15. Considering the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.5,434/- per month and after applying the multiplier and standard deduction of 1/4th, the modified damages under the head of future loss of income comes as under:- Rs.4,076 x 12 x 17 = Rs.8,31,504/-. Assessment of Future Prospects:- 16. The Tribunal did not award any amount under the head of future prospect. It is a well-settled position of law that in cases of death by a motor accident, the claimant/claimants are entitled to not just future loss of income, but also future prospects. It has been reiterated by this Court in multiple instances that "just compensation" must be interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant in the same position as he was before the accident took place. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the compensation to the appellants under the head of future prospects. 17. Applying the analogy of the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590/2014, decided on 31.10.2017 the deceased falls in the classification of 40% for computing the compensation under the head of future prospects. Under this head appellants are entitled to get the following compensation:- Rs.8,31,504x40/100=Rs.3,32,601/- Assessment of compensation under the head of the funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium:- 18. Hon'ble Apex Court in its celebrated judgment rendered in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) held as under:- "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." 19. Hon'ble Apex Court in its celebrated judgment rendered in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) held as under:- "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." 19. Further, in the matter of The New India Assurance Company v. Somwati, decided on 7th September, 2020 Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that the parents wife and children of the deceased are also entitled to get the award under the head of loss of consortium. Thus under the above heads, the appellants are entitled to get the following compensation:- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Loss of Consortium (Rs.40,000/- to each appellants) Rs.2,40,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- 20. Whether the interest awarded to the tune of 6% per annum is insufficient and the claimants are liable to get 18% interest on the awarded money? 21. The nationalized banks are now granting interest at the rate varying in between 7% to 7.50 % on fixed deposits for more than one year up to three years. The rate of interest depends upon the rate of inflation and the supply and demand of credit. As per the RBI Guidelines presently, no bank is offering more than 7.5 % as interest on the FDR. Therefore, in my view, the rate of interest needs to be enhanced on the computed award to 7.5 % instead of 6%. 22. On the basis of the abovementioned facts and analysis, this Court is of the opinion that the just compensation to be awarded to the claimants/appellants under different heads ought to have been as under:- Loss of Income Rs.8,31,504/- Future Prospects Rs.3,32,601/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Consortium Rs.2,40,000/- Total Compensation Rs.14,34,105/- 23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2017 is liable to be modified as above and the claimants/appellants are entitled to be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.14,34,105/- instead of Rs.7,59,000/- along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of making the application as per the terms of the Tribunal. 24. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2017 is liable to be modified as above and the claimants/appellants are entitled to be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.14,34,105/- instead of Rs.7,59,000/- along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of making the application as per the terms of the Tribunal. 24. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs.6,75,105/- after computing the amount already deposited (in terms of the impugned award dated 19.09.2017) along with the above interest in the Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of the order. 25. Consequently, the appeal stands allowed.