Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Noras Devi And Ors vs S.E.Mudhu And Ors on 1 February, 2021
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1082/2004
1. Smt. Noras Devi W/o Ram Chandra Salvi
2. Ms. Kali Kumari d/o Ram Chandra Salvi, Aged 10 years,
3. Sh. Bhagwanlal s/o Ram Chandra Salvi, aged 07 years,
4. Sh. Devilal s/o Ram Chandra Salvi, aged 03 years,
5. Sh. Rooplal S/o Toliram Salvi,
All resident of Amarpura, P.S. Railmagra, district Rajsamand
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sh. S.E.Mudhu S/o K.P. Mugwil, By caste Yadav, At present
Sipahi 1481, 7950 H Sipahi 531 A.S.C, Battalion, Through 56
A.P.O.
2. Sh. Manoharlal S/o Bridgelal Rajpoot, R/o Bajwal, At present
Nayab Subedar, J.C. 419589 Main infantry (94 Arm Bej)
3. Union of India, through Defense Secretary, Ministry of
Defense, New Delhi.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Additional
Solicitor General
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
01/02/2021
With the consent of the parties, the matter is being heard
and disposed of finally.
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-
claimants against the judgment and award dated 19.03.2004
passed by M.A.C.T., Rajsamand in Claim Case No. 415/2002
whereby, an amount of Rs. 13,47,600/- was awarded to the
(2 of 4) [CMA-1082/2004]
appellants-claimants. Dissatisfied with the award, the present
appeal has been preferred.
Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that
learned Tribunal committed an error while computing the
compensation on account of the death of Ram Chandra in this
case. He further submits that the deceased Ram chandra was
working in the Hindustan Zinc Company Ltd. and an amount of Rs.
1,24,000/- per year was his salary, towards the services rendered
by him. He submits that since, there are five dependents in the
family of the deceased Ram Chandra , the learned Tribunal should
have taken into consideration the deduction of 1/4 as an amount
spent on the deceased. He submits that deduction at the rate of
1/3 is against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi
reported in (2017) SC 5157 & The New India Insurance
Company Ltd. And Ors. vs. Somwati and Ors. reported in
(2020) 9 SCC 644. He submits that no amount towards the
future prospects has been taken into consideration while
computing the award, therefore, the same is also required to be
taken into account while recomputing the award in the present
case. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has not taken into
consideration the loss of consortium to the dependent family
members in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi and Somwati and Ors. (supra).
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration all the relevant
documents for arriving at a 'just compensation' in the present
case. In the light of the factual matrix, the evidence produced
before the trial court and the judgment passed by the Tribunal, no
(3 of 4) [CMA-1082/2004]
interference is warranted in this case. Counsel for the
respondents, however, is not in a position to controvert the
proposition argued by the learned counsel for the appellant for
recomputation of the award in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court's judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi and Somwati & Ors.
(supra).
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar. It is an
admitted position that on 02.09.2002, the deceased Ram Chandra,
while travelling in a Jeep, met with an accident with the vehicle of
the respondents. Due to the injuries sustained, Ram Chandra died
and the dependents thereafter filed the claim petition.
A bare perusal of the award impugned and the documents
show that deceased Ram Chandra was working in the Hindustan
Zinc Ltd. and was earning an amount of Rs. 1,24,000/- (after
deduction of the Income Tax). Admittedly, there are five
dependent family members and no amount towards the future
prospects has been taken into consideration while computing the
award. Thus, the award is required to be recomputed in the light
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi and Somwati (supra).
For future 50% of Rs. 62,000/-
prospects :- Rs.1,24,000/-
(Income of
deceased)
Rs. 1,24,000/- + Rs. 62,000/- Rs. 1,86,000/-
Amount to be deducted as Rs. 1,86,000/- / 1/4 =
spent on himself. Rs. 46,500/-
Dependence Amount Rs. 1,86,000 - Rs.
46,500 = Rs. 1,39,500/-
The age of deceased was 33 years, therefore, a multiplier of 16
will be applied.
(4 of 4) [CMA-1082/2004]
(I) Compensation due to 1,39,500 x 16 Rs. 22,32,000
death
(II) For the Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
(III) For the loss of consortium
Rs. 47,000/-
(IV) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
(V) Loss of parental consortium to each of the Rs. 1,20,000/-
three children
(VI) Loss of consortium to father Rs. 40,000/-
Total Rs. 24,69,000/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal vide Rs. 13,47,600/-
award dated 29.05.2013
Enhanced amount Rs. 11,21,400/-
The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. In view of the
recomputation of the award done, the respondents are directed to
pay an enhanced amount of Rs. 11,21,400/- (Rs. Eleven Lac
Twenty One Thousand Four Hundred) to the appellant-claimant in
addition to award already awarded by the Tribunal within a period
of six weeks from today. The said amount shall carry an interest @
9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back immediately.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
52-/VivekM/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
