Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 75 (RAJ)

Vishan Singh Khichi S/o Bhanwar Singh v. Satpal Singh S/o Chhotu Singh

2025-01-10

REKHA BORANA

body2025
ORDER : 1. The present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide judgment/award dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in MAC Case No. 120/2011. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated25.06.2012 awarded a sum of Rs.4,17,952/- in favour of the claimant 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 06.03.2011, Sushma Deval, along with her husband Vishan Singh, their daughter Surbhi and their daughter’s friends Rajna and Alka, were traveling from Khiwandi to Jodhpur in their car bearing registration number RJ-19-CB-5497. At 10:30 AM, when they reached near Bandai, a car bearing registration number RJ-14-CG-8618 driven by Satpal Singh, collided with their car. Satpal Singh was driving rashly and negligently in the wrong direction. The collision occurred while Vishan Singh was driving on the correct side of the road. Unfortunately, due to the accident, Sushma Deval succumbed to her injuries and Vishan Singh, Surbhi, Rajna and Alka sustained grievous injuries and were taken to MDM Hospital, Jodhpur. However, during the course of treatment, Surbhi also passed away. The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured with respondent No.3 – Insurance Company. 3. The appellant-claimant is the father of deceased Surbhi. 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.8,499/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,17,952/- in favour of the appellant-claimant, the breakup of which is as under: 1. Income per month Rs. 8,499/- 2. Loss of Income [as per the age of the father of the deceased i.e. 56 years, multiplier of 8, and deduction qua personal expenses (1/2)] Rs. 8,499 X 12 X 8 = Rs. 8,15,904/- Rs. 8,15,904 - Rs. 4,07,952 = Rs. 4,07,952/- 3. Under the head of ‘consortium’ Rs. 5,000/- 4. Under the head of ‘funeral expenses’ Rs. 5,000/- 7. Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 4,17,952/- Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 10.06.2011. 4. 8,15,904/- Rs. 8,15,904 - Rs. 4,07,952 = Rs. 4,07,952/- 3. Under the head of ‘consortium’ Rs. 5,000/- 4. Under the head of ‘funeral expenses’ Rs. 5,000/- 7. Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 4,17,952/- Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 10.06.2011. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the following grounds: (i) The learned Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 8 as per the age of the father of the deceased whereas, keeping into consideration the age of the deceased, i.e. 27 years, a multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied in terms of the guidelines as set out in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121 . (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 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 committed a significant error in its adjudication by providing insufficient compensation qua the conventional heads. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company though vehemently opposed the submissions as made by counsel for the appellant, but is not in a position to refute the legal and the settled position regarding the above submissions. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. A bare perusal of the Secondary School Examination Certificate (Exhibit G/52) reflects the “Date of Birth” of deceased Surbhi to be 02.07.1983. The document is undisputed and hence, while placing reliance on the said certificate, it can be concluded that the age of the deceased was 27 years at the time of accident. Hence, as per the ratio in Sarla Verma (supra), this Court is of the opinion that a multiplier of 17 as per the age of the deceased i.e. 27 years, ought to have been applied. 8. With regard to the addition of future prospects, the appointment letter of the deceased (Exhibit 21) clearly proves that the deceased was appointed as a “D.P.E. Teacher” with Parasmal Sancheti Kanya Mahavidhalaya, Rani, District Pali on a salary of Rs.8,500/- per month on a probation period w.e.f 01.07.2010 to 30.04.2011. 8. With regard to the addition of future prospects, the appointment letter of the deceased (Exhibit 21) clearly proves that the deceased was appointed as a “D.P.E. Teacher” with Parasmal Sancheti Kanya Mahavidhalaya, Rani, District Pali on a salary of Rs.8,500/- per month on a probation period w.e.f 01.07.2010 to 30.04.2011. In view of the specific documentary evidence pertaining to the employment of the deceased placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased who was just 27 years of age, had a huge possibility of excelling in life and pursuing brilliant opportunities in future.Hence, this Court is of the opinion that in light of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition at the rate of 40% (the deceased not being in a permanent job) ought to be made qua future prospects of the deceased. 9. So far as the amount to be awarded under the conventional heads is concerned, 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. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the said amount under conventional heads shall be payable to the appellant-claimant. 10. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in MAC Case No. 120/2011 is modified to the extent that the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to the following compensation: 1. Income per month [after addition of future prospects (40%) and deductions for personal expenses (1/2) in the monthly income of Rs. 8,500/-] Rs. 5,950/- 2. Loss of Annual Income (as per the age of 27 years of the deceased, multiplier of 17) 5,950 x 12 x 17 = Rs. 12,13,800/- 3. Under the head of ‘consortium’ Rs. 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. 12,83,800 7. Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs. 4,17,952/- 8. Enhanced amount of compensation [Rs. 12,83,800 - Rs. 4,17,952] = Rs. 8,65,848/- 11. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made. Under the head of ‘Funeral expenses’ Rs. 15,000/- 6. Total amount of compensation Rs. 12,83,800 7. Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs. 4,17,952/- 8. Enhanced amount of compensation [Rs. 12,83,800 - Rs. 4,17,952] = Rs. 8,65,848/- 11. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% 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 claimant in terms of the award. 12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.