Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 505 (RAJ)

Kalu Ram S/o Mupaji v. Rajpal S/o Mahaveerji

2025-02-21

REKHA BORANA

body2025
ORDER : 1. The present misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide judgment/award dated 16.09.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in MAC Case No.162/2008.The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated16.09.2009 awarded a sum of Rs.3,35,000/- 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 09.08.2009, one Mukesh Kumar was travelling from Jodhpur to Abu Road in a bus bearing registration No. RJ-24-P-1250. At around 2:15 PM, on reaching near Posaliya, a truck bearing registration No. HR-63-A-9838 being driven rashly and negligently collided with the bus resulting into fatality of Mukesh.The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured with respondent No.3-Insurance Company. 3. The appellants-claimants are the dependents of deceased Mukesh. 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.4,000/- awarded total compensation of Rs.3,35,000/- in favour of the appellants-claimants, the breakup of which is as under: 1. Monthly income of the deceased Rs. 4,000/- 2. Loss of Income (as per the age of the deceased 22 years, a multiplier of 13, and 1/2 deductions qua personal expenses). Rs. 2,000 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 3,12,000/- 3. Under the head of ‘Funeral Expenses’ Rs. 3,000/- 4. Under the head of ‘Consortium’ Rs. 20,000/- 5. Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 3,35,000/- Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 25.09.2008. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants raised the following grounds: (i) The learned Tribunal erroneously computed the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,000/- per month on the basis of prevalent minimum wages whereas the deceased had completed his diploma course in the “Electrician” trade from Industrial Training Institute, Sirohi and had also received a “Call for Interview” for the post of “Probationer Trainee – Technical Helper’’ from Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam. Therefore, the income of the deceased ought to have been considered as Rs.6,000/- per month in view of his professional qualification. Therefore, the income of the deceased ought to have been considered as Rs.6,000/- per month in view of his professional qualification. (ii) The learned Tribunal erred in omitting to take into consideration the future prospects of the deceased while computing the loss of income which is in total contravention to the principles/guidelines as laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 . (iii) The learned Tribunal erred while applying a multiplier of 13 whereas keeping into consideration the age of the deceased and the guidelines laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121 , a multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. (iv) The learned Tribunal committed a significant error by awarding insufficient compensation qua the conventional heads. 5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment to the extent of computation of income, but is not in a position to refute the submission regarding the multiplier, non-consideration of future prospects and insufficient compensation qua conventional heads. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. A bare perusal of the material available on record reflects that the deceased had completed the training Course at the Industrial Training Institute, Sirohi in the trade of “Electrician” (Exhibit 25A1) and had even worked as an Apprentice with the Office of the Assistant Engineer, Bhadroona, Sanchore qua which even a “Certificate for Apprenticeship” (Exhibit 27A1) for the period from 30.08.2005 to 29.08.2006 was issued. Further, the deceased had also received a “Call for Interview’’ (Exhibit 28A1) for the post of “Probationer Trainee – Technical Helper” from Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam to be held on 11.08.2008 and it is when he was going to appear for the said interview that he met with the fatal accident. 8. True it is that no document in support of the income earned by the deceased had been placed on record but keeping into consideration all the above documents placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that there was no reason to disbelieve the version of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month and the same does not call for any interference. 9. The learned Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month and the same does not call for any interference. 9. Keeping into consideration the settled position of law regarding the addition to the deceased’s income qua future prospects and multiplier to be applied, this Court draws upon the precedent set in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra) and holds that addition qua the future prospects of the deceased will be at the rate of 40%, and considering the age of the deceased i.e. 22 years, a multiplier of 18 shall be applied. 10. With regard 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 also be payable to the claimants. 11. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated 16.09.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in MAC Case No. 162/2008 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 (40%) and deduction for personal and living expenses (1/2) in the monthly income of Rs.4,000/-) Rs. 2,800/- 2. Loss of Income (as per the age of the deceased i.e. 22 years, a multiplier of 18) Rs. 2,800 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 6,04,800/- 3. Under the head of ‘Consortium’ Rs. 40,000 x 6 = Rs. 2,40,000/- 4. Under the head of ‘Funeral Expenses’ Rs. 15,000/- 5. Under the head of ‘Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- 6. Total amount of compensation Rs. 8,74,800/- 7. Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs. 3,35,000/- 8. Enhanced amount of compensation [Rs. 8,74,800/- - Rs. 3,35,000/-]Rs. 5,39,800/- 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. Under the head of ‘Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- 6. Total amount of compensation Rs. 8,74,800/- 7. Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs. 3,35,000/- 8. Enhanced amount of compensation [Rs. 8,74,800/- - Rs. 3,35,000/-]Rs. 5,39,800/- 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. 13. Upon deposition of the enhanced amount, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse Rs.40,000/- each (with interest) to Claimants No.3 to 6 and the remaining Award amount (with interest) to Claimants No.1 & 2 in equal share. 14. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.