Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1932 (RAJ)

Rekha Devi v. Hari Singh

2023-10-09

ASHUTOSH KUMAR

body2023
ORDER : (Ashutosh Kumar, J.) The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants - claimants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment dated 07.01.2017 (hereinafter to be referred as "impugned judgment") passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kekri (Ajmer) (hereinafter to be referred as the "learned Tribunal") in MAC Case No.142/2014 tilted as Rekha Devi & Ors. v. Hari Singh & Ors. 2. The appellants-claimants submitted a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,40,30,000/-, due to death of deceased - Bablu @ Mahaveer (hereinafter to be referred as "the deceased"). 3. Learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, has awarded compensation of Rs.14,52,032/- to the appellants-claimants. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants-claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased Rs.5,434/-, keeping the deceased in the category of skilled labour, whereas on the date of accident, minimum wages of skilled labour was Rs.209/- per day, which should be Rs.6,270/- per month. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants further submitted that the learned Tribunal has also erred in awarding lesser amount under the head of future prospects. Furthermore, under the conventional head also, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be enhanced, therefore, the appeal may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award, which warrants no interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal, being devoid of merit, may be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is revealed from perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal that the appellants-claimants have averred in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.4,30,000/- per annum by doing work of property dealing as well as animal husbandry. However, as the appellants-claimants failed to prove income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal, taking into account the minimum wages of a skilled labour, on the date of accident, calculated monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.5,434/-. However, as the appellants-claimants failed to prove income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal, taking into account the minimum wages of a skilled labour, on the date of accident, calculated monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.5,434/-. It seems that the learned Tribunal has taken into account the minimum wages of a skilled labour i.e. Rs.209/- per day by calculating only 26 days of the month, which needs to be calculated on the basis of 30 days, which comes out to be Rs.6,270/- (209x30 = 6,270). 9. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has awarded 50% of income under the head of future prospects. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [ (2017)16 SCC 680 ] has held that in case of self- employed person the increment of 40% as future prospects is to be awarded, if the age of the deceased/injured is below 40 years and 25%, if the age of deceased/injured is 40 to 50. Learned Tribunal has assessed age of the deceased to be 34 years, therefore, 40% of the determined income of Rs.6,270/- is to be added in the monthly income as per the directions given in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra). Thus, total monthly income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.6,270 + 40% (Rs. 2,508/-) future prospects = Rs.8,778/- per month for the purpose of calculating the income of the deceased. 10. It is an admitted fact that the deceased is survived by wife, four children and his parents. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/5 of the amount under the head of personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, after deducting the amount, net income of the deceased comes to be Rs.8,778 divided by 5 = Rs.1,755 and total Rs.8,778 - Rs.1,755 = Rs.7,023/- per month. 11. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has determined age of the deceased to be 34 years, therefore, the learned Tribunal had rightly applied multiplier of 16. 12. Now, as discussed above, applying the multiplier of 16, total amount quantified as the loss of dependency comes out to be Rs.7,023 x 12 x 16 = Rs.13,48,416/-. 13. 11. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has determined age of the deceased to be 34 years, therefore, the learned Tribunal had rightly applied multiplier of 16. 12. Now, as discussed above, applying the multiplier of 16, total amount quantified as the loss of dependency comes out to be Rs.7,023 x 12 x 16 = Rs.13,48,416/-. 13. Learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/- to the appellant No.1 (wife of the deceased) under the head of spousal consortium, Rs.25,000/- each to the appellant Nos.2 to 5 (children of the deceased) under the head of parental consortium and Rs.10,000/- each to the appellant Nos.6 & 7 (parents of the deceased) under the head of 'filial' consortium. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) has held that spouse of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- under the head of spousal consortium and the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur & Anr. reported in [ (2021) 11 SCC 780 ] and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ] has held that parents of the deceased are entitled for 'filial' consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each and children of the deceased are also entitled for parental consortium @ Rs.40,000/-. 15. Therefore, in the present case also the claimant-appellant- wife of the deceased is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- under the head of spousal consortium, appellant Nos.2 to 5, who are children of the deceased, are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each under the head of parental consortium and the appellant-claimant Nos.6 & 7, who are parents of the deceased are also entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'filial' consortium. 16. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. 17. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra), the appellants-claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate. 18. Accordingly, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under : 1. Loss of Annual Income (as per the age of the deceased, multiplier of 16). Rs.7,023 x 12 x 16 = Rs.13,48,416/- 2. 18. Accordingly, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under : 1. Loss of Annual Income (as per the age of the deceased, multiplier of 16). Rs.7,023 x 12 x 16 = Rs.13,48,416/- 2. Under the head of Spousal Consortium, Parental Consortium & 'filial' consortium Rs.40,000/- each to the appellant Nos.1 to 7 Total Rs.2,80,000/- 3. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 5. Total amount of compensation Rs.16,58,416/- 6. Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.14,52,032/- 7. Enhanced amount of compensation (Rs.16,58,412- Rs.14,52,032 = Rs.2,06,384/- 19. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award dated 07.01.2017 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The claimants-appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.16,58,416/- as compensation. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit enhanced amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. After deposition of the said amount, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same in terms of the award. The enhanced amount shall carry 8% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. 20. The other terms and conditions of the impugned judgment and award shall remain the same. 21. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. 22. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.