HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4488/2016
1. Smt Santosh Devi wife of Rameshwar
2. Abhishek Son of Rameshwar
3. Smt. Moongi Devi Wife of Baluram
4. Baluram Son of Ram Dev
All resident of Dhani Randheera, Village Late Ka Bas, Tehsil
Shahpura, District Jaipur. Appellant No.2 is minor through His
Natural Guardian Mother Santosh Devi W/o Rameshwar.
---Claimants-Appellants
Versus
1. Ramesh Kumar Saini son of Kaluram, resident of Dabar
Mohalla, Ward No.17, Shahpura, District Jaipur.
2. Rakesh Kumar Son of Prem Prakash Tailor, Resident of Ward
No.7, Near Meetha Kuwa, Shahpura, District Jaipur (Owner)
3. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. through Manager,
E-8, RIICO Sitapura, Jaipur (Insurance Company)
----Non Claimant/Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ritesh Jain, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 05.01.2023
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 10.01.2023
Claimants/Appellants (for short 'claimants') have filed the present appeal challenging the award daterd 03.06.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Shahpura, District Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.268/2012 titled as Smt. Santosh Devi & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Kumar Saini & Ors. seeking enhancement of compensations.
(Downloaded on 12/01/2023 at 11:38:52 PM)
(2 of 4) [CMA-4488/2016] Brief facts of the claim petition is that on 12.09.2012 deceased Rameshwar-husband of the claimant-Smt. Santosh Devi was going to Shahpura Government Hospital alongwith his uncle's son Kailash and taking food for his Bhabhi who was admitted in the said hospital. At 7:15 PM near BSNL office, Tempo Trax No.RJ- 32-T-0314 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit the Rameshwar, due to which Rameshwar had sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in the hospital and during treatment, he died on 18.09.2012. FIR was lodged at Police Station Shahpura. Claimants sought compensation by way claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, awarded Rs.10,02,768/- as compensation.
Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in considering the income of deceased as per minimum wages of Rs.3,510/-. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that claimants had produced the salary certificate of deceased as Ex.15. Learned counsel for the claimants also submitted that the said certificate was duly proved by witness AW3-Sube Singh. Learned counsel for the claimants also submitted that the Tribunal committed an error by not considering the salary certificate. He also submitted that once the salary certificate of the deceased was duly proved, there was no need of filing accounts and income statement of the firm. Learned counsel for the claimants also submitted that deceased was working as Granite Cutting Machine Operator and he was earning Rs.9,500/- per month. So, appeal filed by the claimants be allowed and the judgment & award dated 03.06.2016 passed by the Tribunal needs to be modified.
(Downloaded on 12/01/2023 at 11:38:52 PM)
(3 of 4) [CMA-4488/2016] Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Mahammed Siddique & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.79/2020 decided on 08.01.2020 and (2) Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.8179/2022 decided on 09.12.2022.
Learned counsel for the respondent(s) has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly observed that claimants failed to prove the income of deceased as Rs.9,500/- per month. So, the Tribunal rightly calculated the amount of compensation as per Minimum Wages Act. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) also submitted that the Tribunal wrongly allowed 50% as loss of future prospects. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) also submitted that as per law, 40% of the income be allowed and appeal filed by the claimants be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the respondent(s).
The claimants had exhibited the salary certificate of deceased as Ex.15 and got recorded evidence of AW3-Sube Singh. AW3- Sube Singh appeared in the witness box and duly proved the salary certificate of the deceased. So, in my considered opinion, in the absence of any clinching evidence on record, the Tribunal wrongly decided the claim petition on monthly wages basis. So, income of deceased as per salary certificate (Ex.15) is assessed at Rs.9,500/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was a married man and having 4 dependants. So, after deducting (Downloaded on 12/01/2023 at 11:38:52 PM) (4 of 4) [CMA-4488/2016] 1/4th from his total income on account of personal expenses of the deceased, income of the deceased is 9500 x 1/4 =2375 (9500-2375=7125) 7125x40%=2850+7125=9975. By applying multiplier of 18 according to the age of the deceased, dependency of the claimants comes to 9975x12x18=21,54,600/- per annum. The claimant No.1 would be further entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- and claimant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are also entitled to receive Rs.25,000/- each for love and affection as awarded by the Tribunal. Claimants are also entitled to receive Rs.25000/- towards funeral expenses as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.21,54,600+ 50,000+ 25,000+ 25,000+25,000+ 25,000 = 23,04,600/-.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 03.06.2016 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.23,04,600/- as compensation instead of Rs.10,02,768/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Other terms and conditions of the judgment shall remain unchanged.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /44 (Downloaded on 12/01/2023 at 11:38:52 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)