Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jairab Ben And Ors vs R S R T C And Ors on 18 March, 2021
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 314/2001
1. Jairab Ben widow of late Shri Gulam Bhai
2. Sakira Ben d/o late Shri Gulam Bhai
3. Abid Ali s/o late Shri Gulam Bhai
all b/c Siya Musalman r/o Badarpur Taluka Kheralu District
Mehsana (Gujarat)]
appellants-claimants Nos. 2 and 3 are minors through their
natural guardian and mother-Jairab Ben widow of late Shri
Gulam Bhai, appellant-claimant No.1
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg,
Jaipur through Depot Manager, R.S.R.T.C. Depot Office, Abu
Road.
2. Dalpat Singh s/o Rawat Singh by caste Rajput Driver, r/o
village Malgaon Tehsil Revdar District Sirohi
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ayush Gehlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. MR Pareek
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
18/03/2021
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants
against the Judgment and Award dated 01.12.2000 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in M.A.C. Case No.
104/1995. The claim-petition was preferred by the
appellants/claimants before the MACT, Sirohi on account of the
death of Gulam Bhai in the accident which occurred on 21.10.1994
whereby, an amount of Rs. 3,36,000/- was awarded as
compensation in favour of the appellants/claimants.
(2 of 4) [CMA-314/2001]
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. 3,36,000/- under various heads
in favour of the appellants/claimants.
Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted
that the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 is incorrect as it was
brought on record that the appellants had taken on rent a land
measuring 90 bighas for agricultural purposes. By farming the
land, Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum was derived by the deceased
Gulam Bhai. He further submits that the Tribunal has taken only
Rs. 30,000/- per annum as the income of the deceased Gulam
Bhai which is on the lower side. Learned counsel fairly submits
that no documentary evidence was placed on record however, in
the statement of AW-1 Gulam Ali and AW-4 Kamal Bhai, it was
stated that the rented land was used for the agricultural purposes
by the deceased and he was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum
from the farming activities on the subject piece of land. He further
submits that the loss of income on account of the future prospects
and other conventional heads have not been paid in accordance
with the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017)
SC 5157. He, therefore, prays that the compensation amount in
the present case may be suitably enhanced.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the Tribunal has correctly evaluated the evidence brought on
record and rightly assessed the income of the deceased to the
tune of Rs. 30,000/- per annum. Since, no documentary evidence
was produced by the appellants in support of their contention that
(3 of 4) [CMA-314/2001]
the deceased Gulam Bhai was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum
from the agricultural activities on the 90 bighas of land rented by
him, he, therefore, submits that the amount awarded by the
Tribunal is "just compensation" and therefore no interference is
warranted by this Court in the present case. However, he is not in
a position to controvert the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi(supra) for awarding the amount in
respect of loss of future prospects and conventional heads.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone
through the Judgment and Award dated 01.12.2000 as well as
other relevant record of the case.
The finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 with respect to the
income of the deceased Gulam Bhai appears to be just and proper
as an amount of Rs. 30,000/- has taken into consideration as an
annual income received by the deceased Gulam Bhai on account of
farming activities done on the 90 bighas of land rented by him. It
is also found that since no documentary evidence in support of the
contention was placed for assessing the income of the deceased as
1,00,000/- per annum. This Court finds the income of deceased
Gulam Bhai was Rs. 30,000/- per annum as just income of
deceased in the present set of facts. As far as loss of income
towards future prospects and other conventional heads is
concerned, the same is required to be awarded in the present case
in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi. The joint calculations by the parties are produced
hereunder:-
For future 40% of Rs.2500/- Rs. 1,000/-
prospects :- (Income of
deceased)
(4 of 4) [CMA-314/2001]
Rs. 2500/- + Rs.1,000/- Rs. 3500/-
Amount to be deducted as spent on Rs. 3500/- 1/3 = Rs.
himself. 1167/-
Dependence Amount Rs. 3500 - Rs. 1167 =
Rs. 2333/-
The age of deceased was 35 years, therefore, a multiplier of 16
will be applied.
(I) Compensation due to 2333 x 16 x 12 Rs. 4,47,936/-
death
(II) Conventional heads Rs. 77,000/-
Total Rs.5,24,936/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 3,36,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs. 1,88,936/-
In view of the discussions made above, the present appeal is
partly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the enhanced
amount of Rs. 1,88,936/- to the appellants/claimants 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
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
the same is paid.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
3-Payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
