Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 76 (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. 119/2011. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated 25.06.2012 awarded a sum of Rs.9,54,626/- 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, was 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 husband of the deceased Sushma Deval. 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.27,965/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.9,54,626/- in favour of the appellant-claimant, the breakup of which is as under: 1. Annual Income (after deduction of 30% towards Income Tax on monthly income of Rs. 27,965/-) Rs. 2,34,906/- 2. Annual Income after deduction qua personal expenses (1/2) Rs. 1,17,453/- 3. Loss of Income (as per the age of the deceased i.e. 54 years, multiplier of 10) Rs. 1,17,453 x 6 = Rs. 7,04,718/- (As 6 years of service of deceased was remaining) Rs. 58,727 x 4 = Rs. 2,34,908/- (As remaining 4 years on pension amount) 7,04,718 + 58,727 = Rs. 9,39,626/- 4. Under the head of ‘consortium’ Rs. 10,000/- 5. Under the head of ‘funeral expenses’ Rs. 5,000/- 6. Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,17,453 x 6 = Rs. 7,04,718/- (As 6 years of service of deceased was remaining) Rs. 58,727 x 4 = Rs. 2,34,908/- (As remaining 4 years on pension amount) 7,04,718 + 58,727 = Rs. 9,39,626/- 4. Under the head of ‘consortium’ Rs. 10,000/- 5. Under the head of ‘funeral expenses’ Rs. 5,000/- 6. Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 9,54,626/- 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) Learned Tribunal while computing the income of the deceased erroneously deducted the amount qua the allowances from the income. (ii) The learned Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 10 as per the age of the deceased whereas, keeping into consideration the age of the deceased, i.e. 54 years, a multiplier of 11 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 . (iii) 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 . (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 though vehemently opposed the submissions as made by counsel for the appellant, but is not in a position to refute the legal position regarding the above submissions. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was employed as a Senior Teacher at Government Senior Secondary School, Takhatgarh District Pali. “Income Certificate” dated 06.06.2011 (Exhibit 19) reflects the gross salary of the deceased to be Rs.29,817/- per month (18,520/- basic pay + 9,445/- dearness allowance + 1,852/- house rent allowance). After deducting the amount of Rs.3,630/- (qua tax), the net payable salary comes out to be Rs.26,187/- per month which, in the opinion of this Court, deserves to be considered for the computation of compensation. After deducting the amount of Rs.3,630/- (qua tax), the net payable salary comes out to be Rs.26,187/- per month which, in the opinion of this Court, deserves to be considered for the computation of compensation. The deduction qua allowances made by the learned Tribunal deserves interference as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Sharma and Ors. vs. Bachitar Singh and Ors., 2011 (11) SCC 425 while relying upon the judgments in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava and Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 763 and Raghuvir Singh Matolya and Ors. vs. Hari Singh Malviya and Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 363 held as under: “11. Based on the aforementioned judgments, we are of the view that deductions made by the Tribunal on account of HRA, CCA and medical allowance are done on an incorrect basis and should have been taken into consideration in calculation of the income of the deceased. Further, deduction towards EPF and GIS should also not have been made in calculating the income of the deceased.” 9. Further, in the recent case of Meenakshi Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2024 INSC 573 reiterating the same position, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “9. Recently in a judgment dated 11th July, 2024 in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini and Ors. [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4230/2019], this Court held that, allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house rent allowance, provident fund loan, provident fund and special allowance ought to be added while considering the basic salary of the victim/deceased to arrive at the dependency factor. 10. Therefore, components of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund have to be included in the salary of the deceased while applying the component of rise in income by future prospects to determine the dependency factor. The Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in factoring these components into the salary of the deceased, before applying 50% rise by future prospects due to future prospects, while calculating the total compensation payable to the Appellant.” 10.1 Coming on to the multiplier to be applied, as per the version of claimant Vishan Singh (AW-1), the age of his wife was 53 years at the time of accident. The date of birth of the deceased to be 28.05.1957 is not disputed on record. Meaning thereby, the deceased was 53 years 9 months and 10 days of age on the date of accident. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shashikala and Ors. v. Gangalakshmamma and Anr., (2015) 9 SCC 150 , the multiplier to be used while computing the compensation in motor accident claims case has to be determined on basis of the age attained/completed by the deceased/injured and not on basis of the running age. Hence, in view of the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) and Shashikala (supra), this Court is of the opinion that a multiplier of 11 as per the age of the deceased i.e.53 years ought to have been applied. 11. Keeping in view the age of deceased to be 53 years and further she being in a permanent government job, as per the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition at the rate of 15%deserves to be applied qua future prospects of the deceased. 12. 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. 13. 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. 119/2011 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 (15%) and deductions for personal expenses (1/2) in the monthly income of Rs. 26,187/-] Rs. 15,057/- 2. Loss of Annual Income (as per the age of years of the deceased i.e. 53 years, multiplier of 11). 15,057 x 12 x 11 = Rs. 19,87,590/- 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. 20,57,590/- 7. Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs. 9,54,626/- 8. Enhanced amount of compensation [Rs. 20,57,590 - Rs. 9,54,626] = Rs. 11,02,964/- 14. 19,87,590/- 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. 20,57,590/- 7. Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs. 9,54,626/- 8. Enhanced amount of compensation [Rs. 20,57,590 - Rs. 9,54,626] = Rs. 11,02,964/- 14. 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. 15. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.