Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rsrtc Through Depot Manager vs Ray Singh And Ors on 23 March, 2021

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1712/2017

1. Rai Singh S/o Shri Krishan Chand, aged 43 years,

2. Suman W/o Rai Singh, aged 39 years, Resident Of Village Mahiyawali, Shiv Chowk, Ganga Nagar, (Raj).

----Appellants/Claimants Versus

1. Surendra Bagadi S/o Shri Ramji Lal, B/c Suthar, R/o Ward No. 3, Suratgarh, Distt. Sri Gangangar.

--- Driver Roadways No. RJ-13-P-2324.

2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) Through Depot Manager, Sri Ganganagar.

---Owner Roadways No. RJ-13-P-2324.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1390/2017 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) Through Depot Manager, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

--- Non-Claimant Bus Owner

----Appellant Versus

1. Ray Singh S/o Shri Krishanchand,

2. Suman W/o Shri Ramsingh, Both Resident Of Gram Mahiyavali, Shiv Chowk, Ganganagar.

---Claimants

3. Surendra Bagari S/o Shri Ramjilal, Caste - Suthar, Resident Of Ward No. 3, Suratgarh, District - Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.S.Gaur For Respondent(s) : Mr. L. K. Purohit for RSRTC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

(2 of 6) [CMA-1712/2017 a/w connected matter]

Judgment

23/03/2021 Issue notice to the respondents in Civil Misc. Appeal

no.1712/2017. Mr. L. K. Purohit, learned counsel accepts notice

on behalf of the respondent No.2 -Rajasthan State Road Transport

Corporation (RSRTC).

The present appeals have been preferred by the claimants as

well as respondent- RSRTC assailing the validity of the judgment

and award dated 18.02.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Suratgarh, District Sri-Ganganagar in Claim Case

No.87/2013(Computer No.256/2014) whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 8,54,000/- to the claimants as

compensation on account of the death of Ugrasen in the accident

which occurred on 04.12.2009. The appeals have been preferred

on the ground of quantum of the award. The claimants have

sought enhancement of the award, whereas, RSRTC has

challenged the quantum of the award on the ground that the same

is on the higher side.

Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment,

therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties,

the matters are being heard and disposed of finally by this

common order.

Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the

evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties

decided the claim petitions.

Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the finding of

the Tribunal on Issue No.2 is not correct as the income of

(3 of 6) [CMA-1712/2017 a/w connected matter]

Ugrasen at the time of the accident was Rs.10,000/- per month,

whereas, the Tribunal has taken into account his income as

Rs.4,500/- per month only. He further submits that mother of the

deceased AD-1 Suman, in her statement stated before the

Tribunal that her son Ugrasen was having a Marriage Palace and

by management of the same, was earning Rs.10,000/- per month

and after death of her son, the Marriage Palace has to be closed.

Learned counsel further submits that the respondent failed to

bring nothing contrary to the statement of AD-1 Suman on record

and, therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the statement of

AD-1 Suman. The Tribunal, therefore, should have taken into

consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per

month. Learned counsel further submits that other factors taken

into consideration by the Tribunal for computation of the award

are just and proper, therefore, the award should be recomputed

while taking into consideration the income of the deceased as

Rs.10,000/- and the same may be suitably enhanced.

Per contra, while opposing the arguments of the learned

counsel for the claimants and pressing his contentions raised in

appeal, learned counsel for the RSRTC submits that the Tribunal

committed an error while considering the income of the deceased

as Rs.4,500/- per month on account of the fact that the daily

income of the deceased was taken to be Rs.150/- per day.

Learned counsel submits that while recording the finding on Issue

No.2 in Para-24 of the judgment, the Tribunal had taken note of

the fact that no documentary evidence had been placed in support

of the monthly income of the deceased. In these circumstances,

the Tribunal should have taken into consideration the income of

(4 of 6) [CMA-1712/2017 a/w connected matter]

the deceased as per Daily Wages Rates notified by the State

Government. He further submits that even if it is presumed that

the deceased was a skilled worker, then also the daily wage at the

time of the accident in the year 2009 was Rs.115/- per day,

therefore, the Tribunal committed an error while computing the

award and taking into consideration Rs.150/- per day as the

income of the deceased.

Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal committed

error while awarding the compensation under the head of loss of

income in favour of claimants taking into consideration 50% of the

income towards the future prospects of the deceased, and

therefore, same is required to be recalculated @ 40% as per the

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

Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in

(2017) SC 5157. He further submits that the amount awarded by

the Tribunal on account of the conventional heads is also contrary

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

Pranay Sethi (Supra). He, therefore, submits that the award may

be recomputed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble 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 18.02.2017.

The finding on Issue No.2 is not correct as it was noted by

the Tribunal that no proof of income was produced before it and

therefore, the income of the deceased should have beencomputed

taking into consideration the Daily Wages Rates

prescribed/notified by the State Government at the time of

accident i.e. in the year 2009. Admittedly, as per the notification,

(5 of 6) [CMA-1712/2017 a/w connected matter]

the Daily Wage Rates prevailing at the time of accident in the year

2009 was Rs.115/- per day for the skilled labour, therefore,

calculating the amount of compensation in the present case by

taking into consideration Rs.150/- per day as income of the

deceased, is erroneous and incorrect. It is held that the income of

the deceased should be calculated @ Rs.115/- per day and,

therefore, the monthly income comes to Rs.3,450/- per month.

The amount of compensation towards the loss of future prospects

as per the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of

Pranay Sethi(Supra) should be 40%. The other conventional heads

should also be taken as Rs.77,000/- in light of the judgment of the

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi(Supra).

The re-computation of award therefore should be as under :-

For             future     40% of Rs.3450/- Rs.1380/-
prospects :-             (Income          of
                         deceased)
Rs. 3450/- + Rs. 1380/-                                 Rs.4830/-

Amount to be deducted as Rs.4830/- / 1/2 = Rs.

            spent on himself.        2415/-
Dependence Amount                                      Rs. 4830 - Rs.2415 =
                                                       Rs. 2415/-

The age of deceased was 20 years therefore, a multiplier of

18 will be used.

(I) Compensation due to 2415x12x18 Rs. 5,21,640/-

death

(II) Other conventional heads Rs. 77,000/-

                                         Total                   Rs. 5,98,640/-

       Amount awarded by the                Tribunal       vide Rs. 8,54,000/-
       award dated 18.02.2017





                                                                             (6 of 6)                    [CMA-1712/2017
                                                                                                   a/w connected matter]

In view of the discussion made above, the appeal of the

claimants for enhancement has no force and the same is,

therefore, dismissed.

The appeal preferred by the R.S.R.T.C. is partly allowed. The

award dated 18.02.2017 is modified and it is ordered that the

claimants are now entitled for an amount of Rs.5,98,640/-

(Rupees: Five Lacs Ninety Eight Thousand Six Hundred Forty Only)

as compensation. The R.S.R.T.C. shall pay the modified amount to

the claimants-appellants within a period of six weeks from today.

The compensation amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum

from the date of filing of the claim petition till the same is paid.

It is made clear that the amount of Rs.5,98,640/- as