Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1956 (RAJ)

Prem Widow of Harna @ Harnarayan v. Islam

2023-10-11

ASHUTOSH KUMAR

body2023
ORDER : (Ashutosh Kumar, J.) The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 25.05.2006 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.1 Kishangarh, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No.156/2004, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,72,000/- to the claimants- appellants. 2. The claimants-appellants filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.37,22,000/-. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues and evaluated the evidence on record. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition, awarded the aforesaid amount as compensation in favour of the claimants- appellants. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 25.05.2006, the claimants-appellants filed this miscellaneous appeal for suitable enhancement of the amount awarded as compensation by learned Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of this case are that on 23.10.2004, one Harnarayan (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was travelling to his village when, driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-02-G-7439 drove it in a rash and negligent manner due to which Harnarayan got hit by the vehicle. The deceased was admitted in the hospital, where during the medical treatment he subsequently died. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contended that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award, has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- on the date of accident. 6. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding any amount under the head of future prospects, as the deceased was 45 years of age at time of accident and, therefore, the claimants-appellants are entitled for future prospects. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that there are 6 dependants on the deceased, however learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount under the head of personal expenses and therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award may be suitably enhanced in favour of the claimants-appellants. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company submitted that learned Tribunal while assessing the monthly income of the deceased, has wrongly applied multiplier of 15. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company submitted that learned Tribunal while assessing the monthly income of the deceased, has wrongly applied multiplier of 15. Learned counsel further submitted that monthly income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.100/- per day, whereas, on the date of accident minimum daily wages of an unskilled labour were Rs.73/- per day and therefore, the monthly income of the deceased should have been assessed as Rs.2,190/-, hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the same be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment has observed that no evidence was produced to prove that the deceased, was working as a security guard and agricultural labour used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of accident. 11. Accordingly, learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. This Court does not find any legal ground to interfere with this finding of learned Tribunal and hence, monthly income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.3,000/-. 12. Admittedly, learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to the claimants-appellants under the head of future prospects. This Court finds that the deceased was 45 years of age at time of accident and was self employed also. Therefore, increment of 25% as to the future prospects, as per the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 is to be made. Thus, total monthly income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.3,000/- + 25% (Rs.750/-) future prospects = Rs.3,750/- per month. 13. It is an admitted fact that the deceased is survived by his wife and children. Mother of the deceased was appellant in the claim petition filed before learned Tribunal, however, she has not filed any appeal challenging the impugned judgment and award. In the present appeal for this reason, she has been made proforma respondent. Therefore, there were five dependants on the deceased and 1/4th part of the income of the deceased should be deducted under the head of personal expenses. After such deduction, the net income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.3,750/- divided by 4 = Rs.938/- and total Rs.3,750/- - Rs.938/- = Rs.2,812/- per month. 14. Therefore, there were five dependants on the deceased and 1/4th part of the income of the deceased should be deducted under the head of personal expenses. After such deduction, the net income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.3,750/- divided by 4 = Rs.938/- and total Rs.3,750/- - Rs.938/- = Rs.2,812/- per month. 14. The age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of accident, thus as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) the multiplier of 14 is applicable in this case. Now, applying the multiplier of 14, total amount quantified as loss of dependency comes out to be Rs.2,812/- X 12 X 14 = Rs.4,72,416/-. 15. Learned Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of consortium to the claimants- appellants. As per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), 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 , the appellant No.1-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. 16. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, however, as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), it needs to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. 17. Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of estate whereas, according to the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/- is required to be granted under the head of loss of estate. 18. So, 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 14). Rs.2,812/- X 12 X 14 = Rs.4,72,416/- 2. Under the head of Spousal Consortium, Parental Consortium and Filial Consortium Rs.40,000/- (each to the appellants) = Total Rs.2,00,000/- 3. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 5. Total amount of compensation Rs.7,02,416/- 6. Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,72,000/- 7. Enhanced amount of compensation (Rs.7,02,416/- - Rs.3,72,000/-) = Rs.3,30,416/- 19. Under the head of Spousal Consortium, Parental Consortium and Filial Consortium Rs.40,000/- (each to the appellants) = Total Rs.2,00,000/- 3. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 5. Total amount of compensation Rs.7,02,416/- 6. Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,72,000/- 7. Enhanced amount of compensation (Rs.7,02,416/- - Rs.3,72,000/-) = Rs.3,30,416/- 19. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award dated 25.05.2006 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The claimants-appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.7,02,416/- as compensation. 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, this miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. 22. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.