Smt. Sajni Devi And Ors vs Chhitarmal And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2562 Raj

(1 of 6) [CMA-1127/2004]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1127/2004

1. Smt. Sajni Devi w/o Kailash Kumawat

2. Shivraj son of Kailash Kumawat

3. Rajesh son of Kailash Kumawat

4. Smt. Bali Devi w/o Sohanlal Kumawat All residents of Gopalpura Post Tehnal Tehsil Shapura District Bhilwara.

Appellants-claimants no.2 and 3 are minors through their natural guardian and mother Smt. Sajni Devi, appellant- claimant no.1.

----Appellants-claimants Versus

1. Chhitarmal s/o Gulab Gadari r/o Bilia, Pur, Bhilwara.

2. Udairam alias Udailal son of Gulab Gadari r/o Bilia, Pur, Bhilwara.

3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

through its Divisional Manager, Bhilwara.

4. Shambhulal son of Suvalal b/c Brahmin r/o Tehnal, Tehsil Shahpura, District Bhilwara.

5. Mahaveer Prasad son of Shambhulal Sharma r/o Tehnal Tehsil Shahpura, District Bhilwara.

6. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

through its Divisional Manager, Bhilwara.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :    Mr. Shubham Modi
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. D.K. Bhootra
                               Mr. L.D. Khatri



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

                                Judgment

30/01/2021

The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation has been filed by the

claimants of deceased - Kailash Kumawat against the award dated

(2 of 6) [CMA-1127/2004]

31.03.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Bhilwara (afterwards referred as 'Tribunal') in MAC Case

No.102/2001, whereby, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of

Rs.5,70,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6%

per annum from the date of filing claim petition.

Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition under Section

166 of the Act of 1988 was filed by wife, sons and mother of the

deceased Kailash Kumawat, aged 28 years, who died in a road

accident on 12.10.2000 with the averments that the deceased

while travelling to village Biliya from Bhilwara city in Tempo

bearing registration No.RJ-06-P1266, another Tempo bearing

registration No.RJ-06-P940, being driven rashly and negligently by

its driver, came from opposite side and collided with the Tempo, in

which deceased was travelling; resultantly deceased sustained

injury and during the treatment died on the same day. With the

other relevant averments, a sum of Rs. 23,40,000/- as

compensation money was claimed from driver, owner and

Insurance Companies of both the vehicles.

As per the reply filed by Insurance Company, driver of the

insured Tempo was not having a valid driving license, hence, the

Insurance Company is not liable.

Replies were also filed on behalf of driver, owner and

Insurance Company of Tempo No.R.J.06/P.1266, in which,

deceased was travelling.

During inquiry, statements of Smt. Sajni Devi (A.W.1)-wife,

Mahavir Prasad (A.W.2)-brother and Ashok Kumar (A.W.3) were

recorded. From the side of non-applicants statement of Prahalad

Raigoyal (N.A.W.1) was recorded to prove the license of tempo

driver of the offending vehicle.

(3 of 6) [CMA-1127/2004]

After inquiry, learned Tribunal while imposing 50 % liability

on each vehicle and holding driver, owner and Insurance Company

liable jointly and severely, awarded a sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- as

compensation money.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of award, this appeal has been

filed before this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the age of

deceased was 28 years at the time of accident and as per the

principles laid down in the matter of National Insurance Company

Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : AIR 19 2017 SC 5157, for the age

group of 26 to 30, multiplier of 17 is applicable. Learned Tribunal

has erred in calculating the amount of compensation by applying

multiplier of 9.

It was contended that learned Tribunal was also not correct

in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the

deceased. The mother was also dependent on the deceased and

looking to the four number of dependents, 1/4 th amount should be

deducted from the income of the deceased. Claimants are also

entitled to get Rs.70,000/- towards conventional head as per the

judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi

(supra).

On the other hand, learned counsels for both the Insurance

Companies contened that mother was not dependent on the

deceased, hence, learned Tribunal was right in deducting 1/3 rd

amount towards personal expenses of the deceased.

Having regard to the rival contentions of the parties and on

perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that award

should be re-assessed following the principles laid down by

(4 of 6) [CMA-1127/2004]

Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Pranay Sethi and Sarla

Verma (supra).

It is not disputed that age of the deceased was 28 years at

the time of accident, hence, learned Tribunal was not right in

applying the multiplier of 9, which is applicable for the age group

of 56 to 60. Learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier

on the basis of age of the claimants, therefore, in the present

case, according to the age of the deceased multiplier of 17 is

applicable.

Regarding deduction towards personal expenses of the

deceased, it is not disputed that claim petition was filed by wife,

two minor sons and mother of the deceased. Contention of

learned counsel for the respondents that the mother was not

dependent on the deceased is not tenable as no evidence was

produced in this regard.

In considered opinion of this Court, the fact that mother has

another sons itself is not a ground for rejection of the claim to the

mother. In this case, Mahavir Prasad (A.W-2) categorically stated

that before accident, expenses of his mother was borne by

deceased Kailash Kumawat. After accident, he bears the expenses

of wife and two minor sons of the deceased. The above statement

of Mahaveer Prasad could not be rebutted in cross-examination.

In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that only

1/4th amount should be deducted towards personal expenses from

income of the deceased.

In view of the material available on record and the law laid

down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the

appellants-claimants are entitled to get compensation in the

following terms:-

                                             (5 of 6)                   [CMA-1127/2004]



Monthly income                       Rs. 5000/-
Annual income                        Rs. 60,000/-
After adding 40% towards             Rs. 84,000/-
future prospects

Less 1/4th towards personal Rs. 21,000/-

expenses
Net annual loss                      Rs. 63,000/-

Loss of dependency                   Rs. 10,71,000/-
Add     compensation             in Rs. 70,000/-
conventional heads
Total compensation                   Rs. 11,41,000/-
awardable

Less amount awarded by the Rs. 5,70,000/-

Tribunal
Enhanced amount of                   Rs. 5,71,000/-
compensation

In view of the above, the appellants-claimants would be

entitled to get a further sum of Rs.5,71,000/-, which shall carry

interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition.

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The award dated

31.03.2004 is modified to the extent that claimants would be

entitled to a compensation of Rs.11,41,000/- instead of

Rs.5,70,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. On the enhanced

amount of compensation, the appellants-claimants would be

entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim

petition till the date of actual payment. The enhanced

compensation shall be deposited in the saving bank accounts of

the claimants through learned Tribunal within a period of one

month from the date of this judgment. The amount shall be

disbursed between the wife, children and mother of the deceased

in the ratio of 40:20:20:20. 50% amount of compensation shall be

payable by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 jointly and severely,

(6 of 6) [CMA-1127/2004]

whereas, rest 50% amount of compensation shall be paid by

respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 jointly and severely.

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

AnilKC/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)