Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1305 (RAJ)

Shanti Devi v. Siddharth Kumar

2023-07-05

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants- claimant Nos.1, 4 and 5 (for short 'the claimants') dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.03.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. -B.T. No. 147/2017(375/2013), whereby an amount of Rs.6,75,608/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition was awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants. 2. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of deceased as Rs.4316/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that deceased-Chatrapal @ Chitar Pal used to build flats and earned Rs.15,000/- per month. Claimant-Smt. Shanti Devi had clearly stated in her evidence that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. No evidence in rebuttal was adduced by the non- claimants. So, income of the deceased be calculated as Rs.15,000/- per month. Alternatively, learned counsel for the claimants also submits that at that time, minimum wages was Rs.166/- per day. The Tribunal had calculated income for 26 days, whereas it should be for 30 days. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal had not awarded amount towards the future prospects and the Tribunal had awarded only Rs.40,000/- under the head of the loss of consortium and love & affection, whereas for loss of consortium and love & affection it should be Rs.40,000/- for per claimant. So, the judgment and award of the Tribunal be modified. 3. Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. reported in 2020 (2) R.A.R. 153 (SC); (2) Ved Prakash Goel @ Ved Goel & Anr. v. S. D. Singh & Anr. reported in 2021 (1) R.A.R. 41 (SC) and (3) Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. in Civil Appeal Nos.2811-2812 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018) decided on 27.07.2020. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that claimants had not adduced any cogent evidence that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. So, the Tribunal rightly calculated the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that claimants had not adduced any cogent evidence that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. So, the Tribunal rightly calculated the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages. He further submits that the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.40,000/- towards the loss of consortium and love & affection because Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts in their pronouncements held that compensation in the head of loss of consortium and love & affection should be in total Rs.40,000/- for all the claimants and not for individual. So, the appeal be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Bhagwati & Ors. v. Manmohan & Ors. in FAO No. 1280/2022 decided on 26.04.2023; (2) Smt. Dropti & Ors. v. Vinod & Ors. in FAO No. 1481/2021 decided on 17.04.2023; (3) Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagat Singh Rawat & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023 (SLP (C) Nos.11669- 11671/2020) decided on 27.03.2023 and (4) Bebi Giri v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 6551/2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8768/2018) decided on 06.09.2022. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 7. It is an admitted position that claimants had not adduced any cogent evidence that deceased-Chatrapal @ Chitar Pal was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal considered the deceased as a labour and rightly assessed the income on the basis of minimum wages but the Tribunal had granted minimum wages for 26 days, whereas it should be 30 days. The Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards future prospects. So, in my considered opinion, considering the age of deceased i.e. 45 years, claimants are entitled to 25% towards future prospects. The Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium and love & affection. So, no interference is required in the amount awarded under the said head. The Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards future prospects. So, in my considered opinion, considering the age of deceased i.e. 45 years, claimants are entitled to 25% towards future prospects. The Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium and love & affection. So, no interference is required in the amount awarded under the said head. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under: Monthly Income 166 X 30 = 4980/- Annual Income 4980 X 12 =59,760/- Since the deceased was years of age, multiplier of 14 should be applied 45 59,760 X 14 = 8,36,640/- 1/4 income to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased 8,36,640 X 1/4 = 2,09,160/- (8,36,640/- - 2,09,160/- =6,27,480/-) Add Future Prospects 6,27,480 X 25% = 1,56,870/- Loss of Consortium and love & affection to Claimants Rs.40,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Medical Bills Rs.61,792/- Total Rs.9,16,142/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.6,75,608/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.9,16,142/- - Rs.6,75,608/- =2,40,534/- 8. In view of the above, the amount of compensation receivable by the claimants comes to Rs.9,16,142/- instead of Rs.6,75,608/-. Thus, the non-claimants are directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.2,40,534/- (Rs.9,16,142/- - Rs.6,75,608/-) with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On deposition of the said amount, the claimants shall be entitled to withdrawn the same. The enhanced amount shall carry 7% interest from the date of filing the claim petition till actual payment is made. 9. Other terms and conditions of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged. 10. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed as indicated above. Impugned judgment is modified accordingly.