Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2255 (RAJ)

Roshan v. Dasrath Singh

2023-12-14

MUNNURI LAXMAN

body2023
JUDGMENT : Mr. Munnuri Laxman, J. - The challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 27.03.2004 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salumbhar (ADJ No.2), Udaipur, on the file of M.A.C. Case No.306/2002, wherein and whereby the claim of the appellants for enhancing compensation was partly allowed granting a compensation of Rs. 2,42,400/- with interest. 2. The present appeal is filed by the claimants-appellants. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants is that the Tribunal below has not appropriately awarded the compensation, more particularly the grant of benefit of future prospects by applying appropriate multiplier and deduction towards personal expenses and amounts awarded under conventional heads. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the compensation considering the factors prevailing at that time and such a compensation requires no interference by this Court. 4. It is also the contention learned counsel for the Insurance Company that parents had separately filed a claim petition. The present claim petition and the claim petition preferred by the parents of the deceased were commonly disposed of and no further appeal has been filed by the parents of the deceased before this Court, therefore, if any benefit is to be extended to them shall not be extended in this appeal. 5. It is also his contention that as per decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corp. and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the father is not to be treated as a dependent unless a specific evidence regarding his dependency is produced. According to him, there is no such evidence from the father. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants has contended that there is no challenge to the award granting compensation to father along with the mother of the deceased. When such findings have attained finality, the respondents cannot take stand that the father is not a dependent. 7. Heard learned counsels for both the parties. 8. The facts which are not in dispute are that the deceased was 22 years of age and he was working as a mining labor and he was earning Rs. 1800 per month. Above facts have been accepted by the Tribunal and there is no challenge to such finding. 9. 7. Heard learned counsels for both the parties. 8. The facts which are not in dispute are that the deceased was 22 years of age and he was working as a mining labor and he was earning Rs. 1800 per month. Above facts have been accepted by the Tribunal and there is no challenge to such finding. 9. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards the future prospects. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that when a person below the age of 40 years is self-employed, 40% shall be given addition to the actual monthly earnings. 10. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3 income towards personal expenses ignoring the fact that the deceased died leaving two parents, a wife and one child. The total number of dependents comes to 4. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is that since there is no appeal from the parents and the father cannot be treated as a dependent, this contention has no merit. The reason is that the Insurance Company has not challenged the findings of the Tribunal that the father is also a dependent along with the mother of the deceased. Such a finding have attained finality, therefore, it cannot be said that the father is not a dependent. The dependents of the deceased are taken as 4. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3 instead of 1/4, which is incorrect. 11. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16, which is not in tune to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (cited Supra). The appropriate multiplier should have been 18 as the deceased was in the age group of 21 to 25 years. 12. The Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, which should be Rs. 15,000/-. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 5000 for love & affection and Rs. 5000/- towards consortium. The deceased is survived by two parents, a wife and a child. The dependents of the deceased are entitled for Rs. 40,000 each towards loss of consortium and loss of estate is fixed as Rs. 15,000, including the amount already granted. The amount of loss of consortium shall be adjusted in the enhanced compensation. 13. It is a fact that there are two separate claims. The dependents of the deceased are entitled for Rs. 40,000 each towards loss of consortium and loss of estate is fixed as Rs. 15,000, including the amount already granted. The amount of loss of consortium shall be adjusted in the enhanced compensation. 13. It is a fact that there are two separate claims. One claim is by the present claimants-appellants who are the wife and daughter of the deceased in Claim Case No.306/2002 and the other claim is from the parents of the deceased in Claim Case No.294/2002. The Tribunal has disposed of both the claims together and fixed and apportioned the compensation to all the dependents. The Tribunal is supposed to fix the compensation justly and properly. Though there is no appeal from the parents of the deceased, this Court is inclined to give the benefit to the claimants-non appellants by invoking the powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC and the benefit of enhancement is extended to the parents of the deceased. 14. Taking into account the above factors, the following amounts are arrived at : 1. Annual income of the deceased (1800 x 12) 21,600 2. Added: future prospects (40%) 8,640 3. Total annual income of the deceased (21,600+ 8,640) 30,240 4. Deducted : towards personal expenses (1/4) 7,560 5. Annual amount of dependency (30,240-7,560) 22,680 6. Multiplier to be applied 18 7. Total amount of dependency (22,680 x 18) 4,08,240 8. Added : Consortium to all claimants (40,000 x 4) [As discussed in the judgment] 1,60,000 9. Added : Loss of estate 15,000 10. Added : Funeral expenses 15,000 Total entitlement of the appellants Rs.5,98,240 15. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2,42,000 to Rs. 5,98,240/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry an interest of 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposition. The amount shall be deposited within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.