Smt.Sohani Devi vs Narayan Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6170 Raj

(1 of 4) [CMA-350/2003]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 350/2003

1. Smt.sohani Devi w/o Ambalal, aged 45 years.

2. Shri Manish s/o Suresh Chandra, aged 02 years. Appellant No. 2 is minor through appellant No. 1,

3. Shri Prakash s/o Ambalal, aged 18 years.

4. Shri Ramesh s/o Ambalal, aged 21 years. All b/c Sargara and r/o Kunvathal, Tehsil Deogarh District Rajsamand.

----Appellant Versus

1. Shri Narayan Singh s/o Shanker Singh Rajpoot, r/o Mangrop, District Bhilwara.

2. Shri Mohammad Asraf Ali s/o Shri Anwar Ali, r/o Near Tejaji Chowk, Bhilwara.

3. The National Insurance Company Limited, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia For Respondent(s) : Mr. CS Rathore for Mr. Sandeep Shah Mr. Sanjeev Johari with Mr. Lalit Parihar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

02/03/2021

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants

against the Judgment and Award dated 23.04.2002 passed by the

MACT Judge, (Upper District and Session Judge) Nathdwara in

M.A.C. Case No. 74/2002 (226/2000) whereby an amount of Rs.

4,31,000/- was awarded as compensation in favour of the

appellants on account of death of Late Suresh Kumar in the

accident which occurred on 06.05.2000.

(2 of 4) [CMA-350/2003]

A claim petition was filed by the appellants before the

Tribunal claiming compensation under various heads on account of

death of Suresh Kumar in the accident took place on 06.05.2000.

Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the

evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties,

decided the claim petition of the appellants awarding the

compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,31,000/- under various heads

in favour of the appellants/claimants.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal

has not correctly calculated the amount of award in the present

case. He fairly submits that the income taken into account by the

Tribunal is not liable to be changed as the Tribunal has rightly

assessed the income of the deceased in the present case. He

further submits that since the deceased was 25 years of age,

therefore, the multiplier of 18 is required to be applied. He further

submits that since there are four family members who were

dependent upon the deceased, therefore, 1/4th amount from the

income of the deceased is only required to be deducted towards

his personal expenditures in the present case. He further submits

that no amount towards the loss of future prospects has been

awarded by the Tribunal and therefore, he prays that the amount

may be recomputed in the present case in the light of the

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National

Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) SC 5157.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance

Company has supported the findings of the Tribunal and submits

that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the amount in the present

case and the same does not require any interference by this

Court. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has

(3 of 4) [CMA-350/2003]

awarded the interest @ 9% per annum which is quite excessive.

However, learned counsel is unable to controvert the fact of re-

computation of award in the present case in the light of the

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay

Sethi (supra).

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the Judgment and Award dated 23.04.2002 as well as

other relevant record of the case.

In the present case, the income of the deceased assessed by

the Tribunal appears to be appropriate, therefore, the same does

not require any change. As far as the deduction from the income

of the deceased towards his personal expenditures is concerned,

since there are four family members, the amount to the extent of

1/4th is only required to be deducted. Since the deceased was 25

years of age at the time of death, therefore, the multiplier of 18 is

required to be applied in the present case. No amount has been

awarded as compensation in favour of the appellants towards the

future prospects of the deceased. Therefore, the award in the

present case is required to be recomputed in light of the judgment

of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra),

which is as under :-

For future 40% of Rs.3,000/- Rs. 1200/-

prospects :-            (Income          of
                        deceased)
Rs. 3,000/- + Rs. 1200/-                                 Rs. 4200/-

Amount to be deducted as spent on Rs. 4200/- / 1/4 = Rs.

himself.                          1050/-
Dependence Amount                                       Rs.4200 - Rs. 1050 =
                                                        Rs. 3150/-

The age of deceased was 25 years, therefore, a multiplier of 18

(4 of 4) [CMA-350/2003]

will be applied.

(I) Compensation due to 3150 x 12x18 Rs. 6,80,400/-

death

(II) For the Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-

                                   (III) Funeral Expenses                                           Rs.      15,000/-

                                   (IV) Loss of filial and parental consortium                      Rs.      77,000/-

                                                                             Total                  Rs. 7,87,400/-

                                          Amount awarded by the Tribunal                            Rs. 4,31,000/-

                                                                      Enhanced amount Rs. 3,56,400/-

The present appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed. The

respondent - Insurance Company is directed to pay an amount of

Rs. 3,56,400/- in favour of the appellants in addition to the

amount already awarded by the Tribunal towards full and final

settlement of their claim. The enhanced amount shall carry the

interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim-petition till the

same is paid.

The record of trial court be sent back forthwith.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

12-Payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)