Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 113 (RAJ)

Champa Devi W/o Lt. Sh. Prabhuram v. Ashok Bhai Dabariya S/o Sh. Arjun Bhai

2025-01-16

REKHA BORANA

body2025
ORDER : Rekha Borana, J. 1. The present misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide judgment/award dated 01.02.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (ADJ) Pindwara, District Sirohi in MAC Case No. 386/2022 (180/2017) (CIS No. 386/2022). The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated 01.02.2024 awarded a sum of Rs.7,76,100/- in favour of the claimants alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 2. Brief facts as pleaded in the claim petition are that on 23.03.2017, Prabhuram Meghwal was en route from Bamanwada to Pindwara, on his motorcycle bearing registration no. RJ-38-SA- 7020. At approximately 3:00 PM, upon reaching Sarhad Jhankar, a Toyota car bearing registration no. GJ-01-RB-1168, being driven rashly and negligently, collided with Prabhuram's motorcycle from behind, resulting in an accident. Unfortunately, Prabhuram succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident. FIR No. 101/2017 pertaining to the accident was lodged at Police Station Pindwara. The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured with respondent No.2 – Insurance Company. 3. The appellants-claimants are the dependants of deceased Prabhuram. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.5,382/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,76,100/- in favour of the appellants-claimants, the breakup of which is as under: 1. Annual Income of the deceased 5,382 x 12 = Rs.64,584/- 2. Loss of Income (as per the age of the deceased between 51-55 years a multiplier of 11, addition of 10% for future prospects and 1/4 deductions qua personal expenses). Rs.5,86,099/- 3. Under the head of ‘Consortium’ 40,000 x 4 = Rs.1,60,000/- 4. Under the head of ‘Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate’ Rs.30,000/- 7. Amount awarded by the Tribunal (round of) Rs.7,76,100/- Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 28.06.2017. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants raised the following grounds: (i) The learned Tribunal erred while computing the income of the deceased to be merely Rs.5,382/- per month while treating him as an un-skilled labour whereas he was employed as Supervisor with Divine Stone, RIICO Industrial Area, Sirohi and was earning a monthly income of Rs.17,500/-. Further, the deceased also earned an additional income of Rs.10,000/- through agricultural activities. Further, the deceased also earned an additional income of Rs.10,000/- through agricultural activities. (ii) The learned Tribunal erred while applying multiplier of 11 only whereas keeping into consideration the age of the deceased at the time of accident, i.e. 50 years 7 months 29 days, a multiplier of 13 ought to have been applied in terms of the principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors.; (2009) 6 SCC 121 Further, counsel relied upon the case of Shashikala and Ors. v. Gangalakshmamma and Anr.; (2015) 9 SCC 150 to submit that the multiplier to be used while computing the compensation in motor accident claims has to be determined on basis of the age attained by the deceased/injured and not on basis of the running age. (iii) The learned Tribunal erred while taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased at the rate of 10% only whereas keeping in view the age and income of the deceased, an addition of 30% ought to have been made with regard to future prospects in view of the guidelines as laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680 (iv) The learned Tribunal committed a significant error in its adjudication by providing insufficient compensation qua the conventional heads. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company vehemently opposed the ground raised qua the income and age of the deceased. However, he is not in a position to refute the legal position regarding the submission made with respect to the conventional heads. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. With regard to the income of the deceased, a perusal of Exhibit-16 i.e. Pay Slip of deceased Prabhuram issued by the employer clearly reflects that for the month of March 2017 the deceased was paid a Basic Pay of Rs.8,700/- and House Rent Allowance of Rs.4,350/-. In view of the said uncontroverted documentary evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the monthly income of the deceased ought to be computed @ Rs.13,050/- per month. 8. Further, it is not disputed on record that the age of the deceased was 50 years 7 months 29 days as per his driving license (Exhibit-15). In view of the said uncontroverted documentary evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the monthly income of the deceased ought to be computed @ Rs.13,050/- per month. 8. Further, it is not disputed on record that the age of the deceased was 50 years 7 months 29 days as per his driving license (Exhibit-15). To meet out such a situation, while dealing with an identical issue, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shashikala (supra) observed as under: “16. Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16.6.1961. On the date of accident i.e. 14.12.2006, the deceased was aged 45 years, 5 months and 28 days and the tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier 14 which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is maintained. Total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs. 16,82,310/- (Rs.1,20,165/- x 14).” 9. In view of the above ratio, this Court is of the opinion that for the purpose of computation of compensation, the age of the deceased ought to be considered to be 50 years. Consequently, with regard to the deceased's future prospects and the multiplier linked to the deceased's age, this Court draws upon the precedent set in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and holds that addition for the deceased's future prospects will be at the rate of 30% and the multiplier corresponding to the deceased's age will be 13. 10. Coming on to the amount to be awarded under the conventional heads, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has fixed the amount payable under the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses to be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram; (2018) 18 SCC 130 interpreted ‘consortium’ to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the amount as determined under conventional heads shall be payable to each of the claimants. 11. Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram; (2018) 18 SCC 130 interpreted ‘consortium’ to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the amount as determined under conventional heads shall be payable to each of the claimants. 11. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated 01.02.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (ADJ) Pindwara, District Sirohi in MAC Case No. 386/2022 (180/2017) (CIS No. 386/2022) is modified to the extent that the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to the following compensation: 1. Income per month (after addition of future prospects (30%) and deductions for personal expenses (1/4) in the monthly income of Rs.13,050/-) Rs.12,724/- 2. Loss of Annual Income (as per the age of 50 years of the deceased, multiplier of 13). Rs.12,724x12x13 =Rs.19,84,944/- 3. Under the head of ‘Consortium’ Rs.40,000x6 =Rs.2,40,000/- 4. Under the head of ‘Loss of Estate’ Rs.15,000/- 5. Under the head of ‘Funeral Expenses’ Rs.15,000/- 6. Total amount of compensation Rs.22,54,944/- 7. Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs.7,76,100/- 8. Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.22,54,944/- - Rs.7,76,100/- ------------------ Rs.14,78,844/- 12. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made. The respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount (if not deposited yet) and the enhanced amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. Upon deposition, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the claimants in terms of the award. 13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.