[2023:RJ-JP:29583]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1538/2014
United India Insurance Co Ltd, Regional Office Sahara Chambers,
Tonk Road, Jaipur through Constituted Attorney Dr. S. P. Mathur
(Manager).
----Non-Claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Sonu Devi W/o Late Vikram Singh aged about 22 years
2. Tammanna D/o Late Vikram Singh, aged 2 years,
3. New Born Child
Claimants-respondent Nos.2 & 3 are being minor through their
natural guardian and mother Sonu Devi W/o Late Vikram Singh, All R/o Mohalla Kotdi, Village & Post Karoli, Tehsil Kotputli.
----Claimants/Respondents
4. Sundarram S/o Tarachand, R/o Mankot, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar (Driver of Trailer No.RJ-14-GE-7356).
5. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Narayan Lal, R/o Bachhari, Ganeshpura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Owner of Trailer No.RJ-14-GE- 7356).
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raaj Pal Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Order
03/10/2023
1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant - Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 13.03.2014 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.481/2012 whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant and awarded a sum of Rs.13,72,500/-.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:33 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:29583] (2 of 6) [CMA-1538/2014]
2. Brief facts of the matter are that on 15.10.2012 an FIR No.164/2012 was lodged in Police Station Guda Endla, District Pali stating therein that on 15.10.2012 the deceased - Vikram was driving the truck bearing registration No.RJ-32-GA-7332 and going towards to Uttar Pradesh, at that time another truck bearing registration No.RJ-14-GE-7356 hit the truck of the deceased and due to which he sustained injuries and died.
3. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the claimants, claiming Rs.52,95,000/- as compensation on account of death of Vikram Singh under various heads.
4. The claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle.
5. Learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award dated 13.03.2014 and partly allowed the claim petition and total compensation of Rs.13,72,500/- was awarded under various heads.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal the present appeal has been filed to quash and set aside the judgment and award.
7. Learned counsel argued that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5000/- in absence of of any documentary evidence. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:33 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:29583] (3 of 6) [CMA-1538/2014]
8. Learned counsel further argued that the learned Tribunal has also erred in assessing future prospects as 50%, as the deceased was not in regular or permanent employment.
9. Learned counsel submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in granting Rs.1 lac under the head of loss of care and guidance for minor children and Rs.1 lac for loss of consortium, whereas as per judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, only Rs.40,000/- each may be granted to wife and children of the deceased.
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.
11. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding assessment of daily income of the deceased is concerned, the income of the deceased - Vikram Singh was assessed as Rs.5000/- per month by the learned Tribunal keeping in mind that the deceased was a skilled labour, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not on higher side.
12. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the learned Tribunal has wrongly enhanced 50% under the head of future prospects and the same is to be 40%. Looking to the age of the deceased as 26 years on the date of incident learned Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 17. The deceased was survived by his wife and two children, therefore, under the head of personal expenses, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th of the assessed income of the deceased.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:33 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:29583] (4 of 6) [CMA-1538/2014]
13. Under the head of loss of consortium, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,00,000/- to the children. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur & Anr. reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the claimant-respondent-wife of the deceased is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- under the head of spousal consortium, claimant-respondent Nos.2 & 3, who are children of the deceased, are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each under the head of parental consortium.
14. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of above referred judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue Nos.1 to 4 elaborately discussed the evidence and awarded a 'just compensation' under the of head of loss of income, deducted ¼ th of the income under the head of personal expenses and has also rightly applied multiplier of 17, but has wrongly granted 50% of income as future prospects and Rs.2,00,000/- as loss of consortium, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is to be reduced. Thus, total monthly income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.5000 + 40% (Rs.2000/-) future prospects = Rs.7000/- per month. The net income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.7000 divided by 4 = Rs.1750 and total Rs.7000- Rs.1750= Rs.5250/- per month. Now, applying the multiplier of 17, total amount (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:33 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:29583] (5 of 6) [CMA-1538/2014] quantified as the net income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.5250 x 12 x 17 = Rs.10,71,000/-.
15. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- under the head of funeral expenses and has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of estate. Considering the directions of Hon'ble the Apex Court, this Court deems it fit to award Rs.15,000/- under each of these heads.
16. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under:
1. Loss of Annual Income (as Rs.5250 x 12 x 17 =
per the age of the Rs.10,71,000/-
deceased, multiplier of 17).
2. Under the head of Spousal Rs.40,000/- each to the
Consortium and Parental appellants
Consortium Total Rs.1,20,000/-
3. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
5. Total amount of Rs.12,21,000/-
compensation
6. Amount awarded by the Rs.13,72,000/-
Tribunal
7. Reduced amount of (Rs.12,21,000-
compensation Rs.13,72,000=
Rs.1,51,000/-
17. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award dated 13.03.2014 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs12,21,000/- instead of Rs.13,72,000/- as compensation. Insurance Company has deposited the whole of the amount in the learned Tribunal, out of which Rs.5 lac are in the form of FDR, the amount of the FDR shall be payable as per the judgment of this appeal.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:33 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:29583] (6 of 6) [CMA-1538/2014]
18. The other terms and conditions of the impugned judgment and award shall remain the same.
19. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.
20. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J A. ARORA /-26.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:33 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)