Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1426 (RAJ)

Bhawari Bai, W/o Ambalal Rathore v. Randhir Singh, s/o, Vagrao Singh Rajpoot

2024-10-17

NUPUR BHATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. The present civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’) assailing the judgment and award dated 21.02.2003 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.372/2001, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimants under Section 166 of the MV Act and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,57,000/-, in favour of claimants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition, while fastening the liability upon the respondents, jointly and severally. 2. By way of filing the cross-objection, the respondent-Insurance Company have assailed the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 21.02.2003, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimants and fastened the liability upon the respondents jointly and severally. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 24.04.2001, Ambalal (deceased) was traveling to Badliya, Gujarat, when in Modasa, a truck bearing number MH-20-A-5986, driven by the respondent no.1/driver on the wrong side, hit the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling on account of which Ambalal died on spot, while the pillion rider sitting with deceased Ambalal, i.e. Himmat Singh suffered serious injuries and later succumbed to death. A claim was filed by the representatives of the deceased Ambalal under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 89,56,000/- on account of death of Ambalal. Learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties partly allowed the claim, while fastening liability upon the respondents jointly and severally, awarded Rs. 4,57,000/- to the appellant-claimants, aggrieved of which, the appellant-claimants have preferred the present appeal, and the respondent-Insurance Company has preferred the cross-objection. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, in its cross-objection submits that the accident did not take place on account of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, rather it was the motorcycle of the deceased that had slipped, which resulted in the accident and therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the issue of negligence in favour of the appellant-claimants. He also submits that the interest levied on the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is also on a higher side and thus, prays for reducing the interest rate on the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. 5. He also submits that the interest levied on the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is also on a higher side and thus, prays for reducing the interest rate on the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant-claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly observed that the respondent no.1/driver of the offending vehicle had been negligent in driving the offending vehicle while taking into consideration the evidence available on record, which led to the unfortunate accident, and thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly held the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in applying a multiplier of 12, instead of 15, when the deceased was 36 years at the time of accident in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 . He also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding future prospects and thus, the same deserves to be added for calculating the loss of income of the deceased, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 . He also submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, while calculating his loss of income, which ought to have been 1/5, inasmuch as there are 7 dependents, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding a meagre amount of compensation towards consortium and funeral expenses and the same deserves to be enhanced in the light of Pranay Sethi (supra). 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused material available on record and judgments cited at the Bar. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding a meagre amount of compensation towards consortium and funeral expenses and the same deserves to be enhanced in the light of Pranay Sethi (supra). 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused material available on record and judgments cited at the Bar. 9. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal, while considering the evidence available on record, had categorically observed that the eye-witness of the said accident, i.e. Shabir Ali, who lodged the FIR (Ex.1) of the said incident, had stated that the accident took place on account of the offending vehicle, insured with the respondent-Insurance Company, which was driven by the respondent no.1/driver in a rash and negligent manner while being on the wrong side of the road. Learned Tribunal has also taken into account the fact that a challan (Ex.3) had been issued against the respondent no.1/driver, however neither the respondent no.1/driver had denied the allegations leveled therein, nor the respondent-Insurance Company or the respondent no.1/driver himself had presented any evidence to rebut the same, in the absence of which, the learned Tribunal has rightly decided the issue of negligence in favour of the appellant-claimants. Thus, upon perusal of the record, this Court also concurs with the finding of the learned Tribunal with respect to the issue of negligence, while observing that the accident took place on account of respondent no.1/driver who drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, on the wrong side of the road. 10. With regard to the quantum of the compensation, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has erred in applying a multiplier of 12, when the deceased himself was aged 36 years at the time of accident and thus, the multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Moreover, learned Tribunal has erred in not granting future prospects while calculating loss of income of the deceased as well as the loss of estate to the deceased under the non-pecuniary heads, and thus, this Court deems it fit to grant future prospects in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Furthermore, this Court also finds that the amount of compensation awarded towards the heads of consortium and funeral expenses is on the lower side and thus, deems it fit to enhance accordingly in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). However, this Court observes that looking at the number of dependents of the deceased, i.e. seven, learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/5 from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, instead of 1/3, in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and thus, deems it fit to deduct 1/5 of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly levied the interest @ 9% p.a. and therefore, deems it fit not to grant indulgence to the extent of interest levied by the learned Tribunal on the compensation awarded to the appellant-claimants. 11. Thus, after arriving at a conclusion that the award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified, this Court directed both the counsel to jointly submit the calculation of the compensation awardable to the claimants afresh in light of the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), the award is modified in the following manner:- Particulars Awarded by Tribunal Amount awarded by the Court Yearly Income of the deceased Rs.56,000/- Rs.56,000/- 40% Future Prospects Rs.56,000 x 40% i.e. 22,400 (56,000+22,400) Not awarded Rs. 78,400/- Deduction of 1/5 i.e. Rs.78,400/- x 1/5th =15,680 (78,400 – 15,680) Rs.36,000/- (after deducting Rs. 20,000/-) Rs. 62,720/- Applying a multiplier of 15, i.e. Rs.62,720 x 15 [A] Rs.4,32,000/- (taking a multiplier of 12) Rs.9,40,800/- Consortium (48,400 x 7) [B] Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- Funeral Expenses [C] Rs. 4,000/- Rs. 18,150/- Loss of Estates [D] Not awarded Rs. 18,150/- Litigation Expenses [E] Rs.1,200/- Rs.1,200/- TOTAL Rs. 4,57,000/- [F] Rs.13,17,100/- [G] ENHANCED AMOUNT [G - F] Rs. 8,60,100/- 12. Accordingly, the instant misc. appeal is partly allowed, while the cross objection filed by the respondent-Insurance Company is dismissed and the amount of compensation payable to the claimants is enhanced by Rs.8,60,100/- in the terms stated above. 18,150/- Litigation Expenses [E] Rs.1,200/- Rs.1,200/- TOTAL Rs. 4,57,000/- [F] Rs.13,17,100/- [G] ENHANCED AMOUNT [G - F] Rs. 8,60,100/- 12. Accordingly, the instant misc. appeal is partly allowed, while the cross objection filed by the respondent-Insurance Company is dismissed and the amount of compensation payable to the claimants is enhanced by Rs.8,60,100/- in the terms stated above. The enhanced amount shall carry the same interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of deposit, in light of Section 171 of the MV Act. The amount of compensation, if any disbursed to the claimants, shall be adjusted accordingly. 13. Record be sent back forthwith. No order as to costs.