Sharvan vs Mool Chand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 312 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 7009/2011

Sharwan S/o Shri Jeevan Ram, aged about 43 years, Resident of
Paner, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer.
                                          ----Claimant/Appellant


                                      Versus
1.Mool Chand S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Resident of Datara, P.S.
Narena, District Jaipur.
(Driver of the offending vehicle No.RJ-01-G-5851)

2.Kailash Chand Yadav, S/o Shri Pokhar Mal Yadav, Resident of
Shoesinghpura, P.S. Phulera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Owner of the offending vehicle RJ-01-G-5851)

3.I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Assurance Company Ltd. Through
Division Manager, the Insurer Company of Offending Vehicle
No.RJ-01-G-5851)
                                   ----Defendants-Respondents

4.Shyari Devi W/o Shri Sharwan, aged about 40 years,

5.Gekha Devi W/o Shri Jeevan Ram, aged about 82 years,

Both residents of Paner, Tehsil Kishangargh District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

----Claimants-performa-respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash for Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Virendra Agrawal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

15/01/2021

This appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (for brevity

"learned Tribunal").

                                            (2 of 3)                 [CMA-7009/2011]



     In   the   road     accident        dated        26.05.2010,   Sewaram     @

Himanshu, died. In the claim petition No.205/2010 filed by the

parents and grandmother of the deceased, learned Tribunal was

pleased, vide its order dated 12.07.2011, to award compensation

of Rs.2,40,000/- to the appellant-claimant No.1 and the claimants

No.2 & 3/proforma-respondents No. 4 & 5.

Assailing the findings of the learned Tribunal qua Issue No.3,

learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned

Tribunal has erred in assessing the notional income of the

deceased-Sewaram @ Himanshu as 15,000/- per annum in spite

of evidence on record to show that he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per

month from agricultural work. Relying on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kishan Gopal and another Vs.

Lala and Ors., (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 244, he

contended that even in case of death of 10 years' old child, the

Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to assess the notional income as

Rs. 30,000/- per annum and hence, even if this Court does not

find the income of the deceased to be true as pleaded, the

compensation deserves to be assessed and enhanced taking the

notional income @ Rs.30,000/- per anuum. He submitted that in

view of the age of the deceased, learned Tribunal ought to have

applied multiplier of 18 years instead of 14 years.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that the

learned Tribunal has assessed just and fair compensation payable

to the claimants and prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

There is no evidence on record to show that monthly income

of the deceased was Rs. 4000/-. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court

(3 of 3) [CMA-7009/2011]

has, in case of Kishan Gopal (supra), wherein the accident has

taken place way back in the year 1992, held that notional income,

looking to the drastic fall in the rupee value, should be assessed @

Rs.30,000/-; whereas, in the present case, the accident has

occurred in the year 2010. In these circumstances, this Court

finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the notional

income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum and it should

have been assessed atleast @ Rs.30,000/- per annum. Looking to

the age of the deceased, this Court finds that multiplier of 18

years should have been applied instead of 14 years as applied by

the learned Tribunal.

In the aforesaid circumstance, this appeal is partly allowed.

The compensation payable to the claimant towards loss of

dependency is assessed as hereinunder:-

Rs.30,000/- X 18 = Rs. 5,40,000/-.

Rest of the award is maintained.

The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/07

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)