Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Uchhab Kanwar vs Lrs Of Heeralal Samriya on 4 February, 2021
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1612/2019
Uchhab Kanwar W/o Late Shri Sumer Singh, aged about 62
years, B/c Rajput, R/o Kankarla, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
Barmer at present residing at House No. 351, ZSB, BJS Colony,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. LR's of Heeralal Samriya S/o Hansraj Khateek
1/1. Smt. Muliya Devi W/o Late Sh. Heeralal Samriya,
1/2. Pintu S/o Late Sh. Heeralal Samriya,
1/3. Mithun S/o Late Sh. Heeralal Samriya,
1/4. Gauri D/o Late Sh. Heeralal Samriya W/o Sohanji,
All B/c Khateek, R/o Backside of Hinglaj Mata Temple,
Gandhi Nagar Colony, Jaisalmer.
(Driver of Tata Magic No. RJ-15-GA-1469)
2. Alane Khan S/o Ishmayil Khan, B/c Muslim, R/o Siyambar,
Tehsil Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer. (Rajasthan)
(Registered Owner of Tata Magic No. RJ-15-GA-1469)
3. Dinesh Kumar S/o Jagdish, B/c Khateek, R/o Bawar
Magra, Kachhi Basti, Jaisalmer at present residing at
Rajendra Prashad Colony, District Jaisalmer.
(Purchaser Owner of Tata Magic No. RJ-15-GA-1469)
4. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch - Shiv
Road, Jaisalmer through its Branch Manager.
(Insurance Company)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shanker Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.D. Khatri
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
(2 of 5) [CMA-1612/2019]
04/02/2021
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant-claimant,
the service upon the respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/4 is dispensed with
at the risk and cost of the appellant-claimant.
With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for
final hearing today itself.
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-
claimant against the judgment and award dated 13.02.2019
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (Metro) in
Claim Case No. 348/2013 (2749/2014) whereby an amount of
Rs. 5,70,000/- was awarded to the appellant-claimant on account
of death of Hanwant Singh in the accident, which occurred on
22.10.2008.
A claim petition was filed by the appellant-claimant before
the Tribunal stating that on 22.10.2008, Hanwant Singh while
walking on feet was going from Ramgarh to Tanot and was hit by
TATA MAGIC No. RJ-15-GA-1469 from backside. In the accident,
Hanwant Singh died on the spot. In these circumstances, the
appellant-claimant claimed compensation under various heads on
account of death of Hanwant Singh.
The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the
evidence and hearing the arguments of the parties, passed the
judgment and award dated 13.02.2019 vide which an amount of
Rs. 5,70,000/- was awarded as compensation under various heads
in favour of the appellant-claimant.
Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that
deceased Hanwant Singh was a brilliant student and was pursuing
the study in B.A. 1st Year. He, therefore, was having bright future
prospects. Learned counsel further submits that beside the
(3 of 5) [CMA-1612/2019]
studies of B.A., deceased was also taking tuition classes and was
earning about Rs. 4,500/- per month. But the Tribunal has erred
in taking into consideration the notional income of the deceased
Hanwant Singh as Rs. 30,000/- per annum as per the schedule.
Learned counsel further submits that no amount towards the
future prospects and loss of consortium has been awarded by the
Tribunal in the present case in light of the judgment delivered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & ors. reported in 2017/
ACJ/2700. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the amount of
compensation in the present case deserves to be enhanced
suitably.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance
Company while supporting the judgment and award dated
13.02.2019 passed by the Tribunal has submitted that the Tribunal
after taking into consideration the fact that deceased was not
employed and no evidence was produced on record to show that
the deceased was taking tuition classes and earning Rs. 4,500/-
per month as also the age of the deceased, has rightly assessed
the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 30,000/- per annum
while computing the award in the present case. Learned counsel
further submits that the award passed by the Tribunal suffers from
no infirmity as the Tribunal has rightly evaluated the evidence
brought before it and thus, has rightly passed the judgment and
award in the present case. However, learned counsel for the
respondent - Insurance Company is unable to counter the
submissions made by the appellant-claimant with respect to the
ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra).
(4 of 5) [CMA-1612/2019]
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have
gone through the judgment and award dated 13.02.2019 as well
as other relevant documents.
The fact that the deceased Hanwant Singh was pursuing
study in B.A. 1st Year and was a brilliant student is fortified from
the mark-sheets of the deceased produced on record before the
Tribunal which show that he had secured 1 st Division in the Higher
Secondary Examination. The fact that the deceased was residing
in the remote area of Rajasthan where the population has
available limited resources, therefore, the fact that the deceased
Hanwant Singh was taking tuition classes of the students living in
the nearby vicinity, cannot be ruled out. Thus, in the opinion of
this Court, if an amount as per the minimum wages in the skilled
category is taken into consideration, the same will meet the ends
of justice. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 4,342/- prevailing in the
year 2012 as per the Minimum Wages Act, is required to be taken
into consideration while computing the award. Since the deceased
was an unmarried person, therefore, deduction of 1/2 share from
his income would be made and the future prospects to the tune of
40% would be taken into account while computing the income of
the deceased in this case. Besides, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- is
also required to be awarded towards the loss of consortium in light
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, the award is required to be
recomputed in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), which is as under :-
Monthly Income :- Rs. 4,342/- p.m.
Deduction towards :- Rs. 4,342/- - 1/2 = Rs. 2,171/- p.m.
amount spent on himself
(5 of 5) [CMA-1612/2019]
For future 40% of Rs. 2,171/- Rs. 868/-
prospects :- (Income of
deceased)
Rs. 2,171/- + Rs. 868/- Rs. 3,039/-
Dependence Amount (Rs. 3,039 x 12) Rs. 36,468/-
The age of deceased was 18 years, therefore, a multiplier of 18
will be applied.
(I) Compensation due to Rs. 36,468 x 18 Rs. 6,56,424/-
death
(II) For the Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
(III) For Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
(III) For the loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/-
Total Rs. 7,26,424/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal vide Rs. 5,70,000/-
award dated 13.02.2019
Enhanced amount Rs. 1,56,424/-
The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. In view of the
recomputation of the award done, the respondent - Insurance
Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs.
1,56,424/- (Rs. One Lac Fifty Six Thousand Four Hundred Twenty
Four only) to the appellant-claimant in addition to the amount
already awarded by the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks
from today. The said amount shall carry an interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
167-Inder/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
