Habib Khan And Ors vs Rameshwar Lal Saini Andors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3390 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 719/2006

1.     Habib Khan S/o Jawadi Khan, By Caste Mohammedan
       Kayam Khani, R/o Village Balaram, Tehsil Laxmangarh,
       District Sikar
2.     Dakhoo Khan W/o Habib Khan, By Caste Mohammedan
       Kayam Khani, R/o Village Balaram, Tehsil Laxmangarh,
       District Sikar
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                   Versus
1.     Rameshwar Lal Saini S/o             Shri Maniram Saini, By Caste
       Saini, R/o Singhana Tehsil          Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, At
       Present Driver R.r.p.p.n.            Agaar, Sindhi Camp, Jaipur
       Driver Of Bus No. Rj 14 1P          1923
2.     General Manager Rsrtc, Jaipur Through Dipo Manager
       Rsrtc, Tehsil Jhunjhunu And District Jhunjhunu
3.     Dipo Manager Rsrtc, Sindhi Camp, Jaipur District Jaipur
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rohan Agarwal and Mr. Daulat Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Goyal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Judgment

28/04/2022

Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants-

appellants against the judgment and award dated 09.11.2005

passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional

District Judge Fast Track No.3, Jhunhunu, Rajasthan (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Claim Case No.57/2004

(300/2005) whereby an amount of 91,000/- was awarded as

compensation on account of death of Ashfaq in the accident

occurred on 04.09.2003.

Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the

evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties,

(2 of 4) [CMA-719/2006]

decided the claim petition of the claimants-appellants and

awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.91,000/- under various

heads in favour of the claimants-appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

deceased Ashfaq was 17 years of age at the time of accident, so,

as per the principles laid down in the matter of Sarla Verma v.

Delhi Transport Corporation : (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of

18 is applicable whereas learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 16.

Learned counsel further submitted that since the Tribunal has

determined the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15000/-

per month, but seriously erred in deducting 1/3rd amount towards

personal expenses of the deceased. He further submitted that

whenever notional income is determined, the deduction should not

be made towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Learned

counsel therefore prays that recomputation of the award may be

done in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Sarla Verma (supra).

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance

Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim

petition of the claimants-appellants has rightly taken into

consideration all the factors while calculating the award in this

case on the anvil of the evidence produced before it. Thus, the

judgment dated 09.11.2005 does not call for any interference by

this Court. Learned counsel, however, is not in a position to

controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the

appellants with respect to recomputation of the award in the

present case in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Sarla Verma (supra).

(3 of 4) [CMA-719/2006]

I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone

through the judgment dated 09.11.2005 as well as the other

relevant documents available on record.

Admittedly, the deceased was 17 years of age at the time of

accident, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in applying the

multiplier of 16 in the present case. In the light of judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Sarla Verma (supra),

multiplier of 18 is required to be applied.

Further, the 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses

made by the Tribunal is required to be quashed and the appellants

are held entitled to get the compensation as per the notional

income of the deceased i.e. Rs.15000/- per month.

Since the finding has already been recorded by the Tribunal

that there was contributory negligence on the part of the

deceased, hence, the appellants are entitled to get half amount of

the awarded compensation by the Tribunal, the same remains

unchanged. Thus, the award is recomputed as under:-

Annual income                     Rs. 15000/-

                                  15000/-x 18 = 2,70,000/-
Towards consortium                Rs.20,000/-
Funeral Expenses                  Rs.2000/-
Total compensation                Rs. 2,92,000/-
awardable
Less 50% towards                  Rs.2,92,000-Rs.1,46,000/-=
contributory negligence           Rs.1,46,000/-

Less amount awarded by the Rs. 1,46,000/- Rs.91,000/- = Tribunal Rs. 55,000/-

Enhanced amount of                Rs. 55,000/-
compensation





                                                                             (4 of 4)               [CMA-719/2006]

Thus, an amount of Rs. 55,000/- is enhanced in the present

case. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay

enhanced amount of Rs. 55,000/- in addition to the amount

already awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 09.11.2005

within a period of two months from the date of receiving of

certified copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall carry 6%

interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till then the

actual payment is made.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.

Record be sent back forthwith.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

HEENA GANDHI /4

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)