Smt. Sajida Banu W/O Late Shri Irshad ... vs Mahipal Vishnoi S/O Shri Baksa Vishnoi

Rajasthan High Court

Smt. Sajida Banu W/O Late Shri Irshad ... vs Mahipal Vishnoi S/O Shri Baksa Vishnoi on 2 May, 2024

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

[2024:RJ-JP:20570]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1480/2020




1.       Smt. Sajida Banu W/o Late Shri Irshad Mohammad, Aged
         About 42 Years, R/o Kuraishi Mohalla, Nagar Palika
         Colony, Near Pani Ki Tanki, Amet, District Rajasmand
2.       Kumari Parveen D/o Late Shri Irshad Mohammad, Aged
         About 14 Years, Minor Through Their Mother Appellant
         No. 1 Sajida Bano, R/o Kuraishi Mohalla, Nagar Palika
         Colony, Near Pani Ki Tanki, Amet, District Rajasmand
3.       Kumari Busra D/o Late Shri Irshad Mohammad, Aged
         About 12 Years, Minor Through Their Mother Appellant
         No. 1 Sajida Bano, R/o Kuraishi Mohalla, Nagar Palika
         Colony, Near Pani Ki Tanki, Amet, District Rajasmand
4.       Kumari Jajiya D/o Late Shri Irshad Mohammad, Aged
         About 9 Years, Minor Through Their Mother Appellant No.
         1 Sajida Bano, R/o Kuraishi Mohalla, Nagar Palika Colony,
         Near Pani Ki Tanki, Amet, District Rajasmand
5.       Master Irfan S/o Late Shri Irshad Mohammad, Aged
         About 7 Years, Minor Through Their Mother Appellant No.
         1 Sajida Bano, R/o Kuraishi Mohalla, Nagar Palika Colony,
         Near Pani Ki Tanki, Amet, District Rajasmand
6.       Master Jishan S/o Late Shri Irshad Mohammad, Aged
         About 4 Years, Minor Through Their Mother Appellant No.
         1 Sajida Bano, R/o Kuraishi Mohalla, Nagar Palika Colony,
         Near Pani Ki Tanki, Amet, District Rajasmand
7.       Smt. Taj Bano W/o Shri Sadiq Mohammad, Aged About 60
         Years, R/o Kuraishi Mohalla, Nagar Palika Colony, Near
         Pani Ki Tanki, Amet, District Rajasmand


                                                                      ----Appellants
                                       Versus


1.       Mahipal Vishnoi S/o Shri Baksa Vishnoi, R/o Chadi, Falodi,
         District Jodhpur (Raj) (Driver Of The Bus No. Rj-22-Pa-
         2224)
2.       Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through
         Chief       Manager,       Rajasthan          State        Road   Transport


                        (Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:26:09 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JP:20570]                   (2 of 5)                       [CMA-1480/2020]


         Corporation Beawar Depot, Beawar District Ajmer, Having
         Its Head Office At Parivahan Marg, Chomu House Circle,
         Jaipur (Owner Of The Bus No. Rj-22-Pa-2224)


                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Singh, Adv. for Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhilash Vishnu Bhardwaj, Adv.

for respondent No.2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 02/05/2024 The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimants-appellants (for short 'the claimants') dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 03.10.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Session Judge No. 3) Beawar (for short 'The Tribunal') in Case No.42/2019 (238/2018) (Smt. Sajida Banu and Ors. Vs. Mahipal Vishnoi and Anr.) whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,317/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition as compensation in favour of the claimants.

Learned counsel for the claimants submits that Tribunal had wrongly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.5,538/- per month. The deceased was doing business of buying and selling of goat's meat and earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month. So, the income of the deceased be calculated as Rs.25,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the (Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:26:09 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:20570] (3 of 5) [CMA-1480/2020] Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased for 26 days only, whereas it should be for 30 days. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has awarded very meagre amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No. 1, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- for each claimant. So, the judgment and award of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly.

Learned counsel for the RSRTC has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submits that the claimants failed to adduce any cogent evidence that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. So, the Tribunal had rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,538/- per month. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the RSRTC.

It is an admitted position that the claimants failed to adduce any cogent evidence that deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time i.e., Rs.213/- per day but the Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased for 26 days only, whereas it should be for 30 days. The Tribunal has awarded a very meager amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas it should be (Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:26:09 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:20570] (4 of 5) [CMA-1480/2020] Rs.40,000/- for each claimant. So, the judgment of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under:-

         Monthly Income                                 213X30=Rs.6390/-
         Annual Income                             6390X12=Rs.76,680/-
  According to the age of the                  76,680X14=Rs. 10,73,520/-
    deceased i.e. 42 years,
  multiplier 14 to be applied
  Since the deceased had 7                          10,73,520-2,14,704=
dependents, 1/5 income to be                            Rs.8,58,816/-
    deducted for personal
 expenses of the deceased(-)
    Add 25% towards future                              8,58,816+25%=
         prospects (+)                                   Rs.10,73,520/-
 Loss of Consortium and Love                             Rs. 2,80,000/-
   & Affection (40,000 X 7)
        Funeral Expenses                                   Rs.15,000/-

          Loss of Estate                                   Rs.15,000/-
                Total                                    Rs.13,83,520/-
     Less Awarded Amount                                 Rs.10,00,317/-
        Enhanced Amount                    Rs. 13,83,520 - Rs. 10,00,317 =
                                                    Rs.3,83,203/-

      The    claimants      are     entitled       to    get    a   further   sum   of

Rs.3,83,203/- as compensation. RSRTC is directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.3,83,203/-(Rs.13,83,520 - Rs.10,00,317/-) with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On deposition of the said amount, the claimants shall be entitled to withdrawn the same. The enhanced amount shall carry 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made.

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. (Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:26:09 PM)

[2024:RJ-JP:20570] (5 of 5) [CMA-1480/2020] Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged. Impugned judgment and award is modified accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/152 (Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:26:09 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)