Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1356 (RAJ)

Khem Chand Nagar v. Mahipal Singh

2023-07-11

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1. The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dated 05.08.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1,Kota (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 1686/2014(258/12), titled as "Khem Chand Nagar & Anr. v. Mahipal Singh & Ors.", whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.7,38,580/- along with interest @7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition as compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants (for short 'the claimants'). 2. CMA No. 5910/2016 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal whereas CMA No. 5902/2016 has been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the RSRTC') challenging the judgment & award passed by the Tribunal on the various grounds. 3. CMA No. 9510/2016-Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the deceased-Rohitraj Nagar only Rs.205/- per day. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that they had proved by un-rebutted evidence that deceased was a student of B.Tech Final Year (Eighth Semester) Electrical Engineering, Govt. Engineering College, Ajmer. His academic career was excellent throughout the life. After completing his B.Tech course, he would have got a good job in any government agency or private company and he would have easily earned at least Rs.25,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that students studying along-with deceased are getting Rs.40,000/- per month. So, income of the deceased may be calculated as Rs.25,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 14. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that multiplier should not be applied on the basis of the deceased's mother. At the time of accident, age of the deceased was 22 years and 6 months. So, multiplier of 18 should be applied on the basis of age of deceased. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal has awarded very meagre amount towards love and affection, whereas it should be Rs. 40,000/- to each of the claimant. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal has awarded very meagre amount towards love and affection, whereas it should be Rs. 40,000/- to each of the claimant. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla & Ors. v. Rameshwar & Ors. in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2210/2008 decided on 20.09.2013. 5. Learned counsel for the RSRTC in CMA No. 5902/2016 has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assigned the negligency of the alleged bus. Learned counsel for the RSRTC further submits that the deceased was going on the motorcycle along with his friend Kushagra Gautam and due to their negligency, they collided with the bus from the back side. So, the RSRTC is not responsible for the negligence of the deceased. Learned counsel for the RSRTC further submits deceased was not in job but the Tribunal has wrongly awarded 50% towards future prospects. So, award of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 7. While deciding the claim petition, the Tribunal in its award clearly stated that as per the fund inspection of damage motorcycle (Ex.-14), front mudguard of motorcycle was broken and back tyres and rims were completely damaged. It clearly shows that the alleged bus hit the motorcycle from back side. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has rightly decided the issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants. It is an admitted position that deceased was a student of B.Tech Final Year (Eighth Semester) Electrical Engineering, Govt. Engineering College, Ajmer. After completing of his B.tech course, he would have got a good job and easily earned Rs.15,000/- per month but the Tribunal has wrongly assessed his income as Rs.205/- per day on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time for high skilled labour. So, in my considered opinion, income of the deceased be calculated as Rs.15,000/- per month instead of Rs.205/- per day. So, in my considered opinion, income of the deceased be calculated as Rs.15,000/- per month instead of Rs.205/- per day. The Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 14 on the basis of age of deceased's mother, whereas it should be applied on the basis of age of the deceased. At the time of accident, deceased was 22 years and 6 months. So, multiplier should be applied of 18 instead of 14. The Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under: Monthly Income Rs.15,000/- Annual Income 15,000X12= Rs.1,80,000/- Since the deceased was 22 years and six months of age, multiplier of 18 should be applied 1,80,000X18= Rs.32,40,000/- Since, the deceased was unmarried, 1/2 income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased 32,40,000-16,20,000=Rs. 16,20,000/- According to the age of the deceased, add 50% towards future prospects (+) 16,20,000+8,10,000/- =Rs.24,30,000/- Loss of Love & Affection to claimant Nos.1 and 2 (Rs.20,000X2) (+) Rs.40,000/- Medical expenses(+) Rs.17,000/- Funeral expenses(+) Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.25,02,500/- 8. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal No. 5910/2016 filed by the claimants is partly allowed. The claimants are entitled to get a further sum of Rs.17,63,920/-(25,02,500-7,38,580) as compensation. The RSRTC is directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.17,63,920/- 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 @ 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the RSRTC is dismissed, whereas, appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed. 10. Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged. Impugned judgment and award is modified accordingly. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.