Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 394 (RAJ)

Kali Devi W/o Karna v. Sawai Singh S/o Gyansingh

2024-03-04

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dated 15.10.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Kekri, District Ajmer (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.35/2018, titled as “Smt. Kali Devi & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sawai Singh & Anr.”, whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.8,83,888/-along with interest @ 6 % 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.96/2020 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal whereas CMA No.1365/2020 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.96/2020-Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased-Govind as Rs.5,382/-per month. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/-per month by doing labour work. So, income of the deceased be considered as Rs.12,000/-per month. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal wrongly calculated the income of deceased for 26 days, whereas, it should be for 30 days. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits the Tribunal has wrongly awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.70,000/-towards filial consortium and funeral expenses etc., whereas it should be Rs. 40,000/-towards loss of love and affection & loss of consortium to each claimant, Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/-towards loss of estate. So, judgment of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the RSRTC in CMA No.1365/2020 has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded the amount of compensation in favour of the claimants. Learned counsel for the RSRTC further submits that the accident was occurred on 24.04.2017 but the FIR was lodged on 25.04.2017 with a delay of one day. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that the Tribunal has wrongly came to the conclusion that the charge-sheet was filed against Sawai Singh, driver of the offending Bus. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased. So, the claim petition filed by the claimants be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that the Tribunal has wrongly came to the conclusion that the charge-sheet was filed against Sawai Singh, driver of the offending Bus. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased. So, the claim petition filed by the claimants be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is an admitted position that the claimants failed to adduce any cogent evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/-per month. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,382/-per month on the basis of minimum wages as prevalent at the relevant point of time for an unskilled labour but the Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased for 26 days only, whereas it should be for 30 days. The Tribunal has awarded lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/-towards loss of filial consortium and funeral expenses, whereas it should be Rs. 40,000/-per claimant towards loss of consortium and love and affection, Rs. 15,000/-towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses. So, the judgment of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under:- Monthly income 207X30= Rs.6,210/- Since the deceased was a bachelor and his two brothers were not dependent upon the deceased, 1/2 is to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased 6,210-3,105= Rs.3,105/- Annual Income 3,105 X12= Rs.37,260/- According to the age of the deceased which was between the age bracket of 21 to 25 years, multiplier 18 to be applied 37,260 X18=Rs. 6,70,680/- Add 40% towards future prospects 6,70,680+2,68,272= Rs.9,38,952/- Loss of Love and Affection to the claimant Nos. 3 and 4 = 40,000X 2=80,000/-, loss of filial consortium to parents (claimant Nos.1 and 2) Rs.40,000X2=80,000/- (+) Rs.1,60,000/- Funeral expenses (+) Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Estate (+) Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.11,28,952/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.8,83,888/- Enhanced Amount of compensation 11,28,952-8,83,888= Rs.2,45,064/- 7. The claimants are entitled to get a further sum of Rs.2,45,064/-as compensation. The RSRTC is directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.2,45,064/-(Rs. 11,28,952-8,83,888) 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 claimants are entitled to get a further sum of Rs.2,45,064/-as compensation. The RSRTC is directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.2,45,064/-(Rs. 11,28,952-8,83,888) 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 @ 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the RSRTC is dismissed, whereas, appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed, as indicated above. 9. Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged. Impugned judgment and award is modified accordingly. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.