Rajasthan High Court
Narbada Devi And Ors vs Ganpat Ram Choudhary And Ors on 29 April, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2628/2008
1. Narbada Devi wife of Lt. Sh. Mool Chand
2. Pankaj Kumar son of Lt. Sh. Mool Chand
3. Meena daughter of Lt. Sh. Mool Chand
4. Vikas Kumar son of Lt. Sh. Mool Chand
(Appellant Nos.3 & 4 are minor through their mother and
natural guardian Narbada Devi wife of Lt. Sh. Mool Chand)
All resident of Dukiya, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar,
Rajasthan.
----Claimant-Appellants
Versus
1. Ganpat Ram Choudhary son of Gangaram, resident of
Chidhani, Tehsil Bilada, PS Peepada, District Jodhpur and also at
Basant Colony, Ajmer Road, Chungi naka, Jodhpur (Driver)
2. Subhash Chand Lamba son of Khyaliram Lamba, resident of H.
No.10, Sector No.7, New Power House Road, Jodhpur, District
Jodhpur (Owner).
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office behind
Nidhi Bhawan, High Court circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur through its
Regional Manager.
----Non-claimant-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kala
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
29/04/2022
Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants-
appellants against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2008
passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast
Track No.1-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, Rajasthan
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Claim Case
(2 of 5) [CMA-2628/2008]
No.331/2005 whereby an amount of Rs.3,37,600/- was awarded
as compensation on account of death of Mool Chand in the
accident occurred on 13.06.2004.
Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the
evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties,
decided the claim petition of the claimants-appellants and
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,37,600/- under various
heads in favour of the claimants-appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
deceased Mool Chand was 36 years of age and he was doing the
job of carpenter and he was running a flour mill and AARA
machine at home. His monthly income was Rs.7000/-, but without
any basis the Tribunal has determined the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.2200/-. Counsel further submits that since the
deceased was a carpenter, which falls within the definition of a
skilled labour, so, at least the Tribunal should have assessed the
income of the deceased as Rs.81/- per day. Counsel further
submits that the claimants are four in number, so, the deduction
towards personal expenses should have been 1/4th, but the
Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of
the deceased.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that no
amount towards future prospects has been awarded in the light of
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi reporte Learned counsel
therefore, prayed that recomputation of the award in the present
case may be done in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
(3 of 5) [CMA-2628/2008]
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 28.02.2008 does not call for any interference by
this Court.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits
that looking to the age of deceased Mool Chand i.e. 36 years, the
multiplier of 15 should have been applied instead of 16 in the light
of judgment in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation : (2009) 6 SCC 121, however he 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 looking to the fact that the deceased Mool Chand
was a carpenter, which falls within the definition of a skilled labour
and recomputation of the award in the present case may be done
in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra).
I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone
through the judgment dated 28.02.2008 as well as the other
relevant documents available on record.
Admittedly, the deceased Mool Chand was 36 years of age at
the time of accident, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in
applying the multiplier of 16 in the present case as the multiplier
of 15 is applicable for the age group of 36-40 as per the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra).
Since the deceased Mool Chand was a carpenter, which falls
within the definition of a skilled labour, so, looking to the nature of
(4 of 5) [CMA-2628/2008]
work, it would be appropriate to assess loss of income on the
basis of income equivalent to minimum monthly wages prescribed
for skilled worker at the relevant time and as per the notification
of the State Government, minimum wages prescribed for a skilled
worker at the relevant time was Rs. 81/- per day.
Further, since, no compensation has been awarded in the
head of future prospects, 40% of the annual income as future
prospects is required to be added to the yearly income of the
deceased and suitable amount is required to be added towards
conventional heads in the light of the judgment in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra).
Thus, the award is recomputed as under:-
Monthly income Rs. 81/- x 30 =Rs.2430/-
Annual Income Rs.2430/- x 12 = 29,160/-
Add 40 % towards future Rs.29,160/- + 11,664/-
prospects = 40,824/-
Rs.40,824/-x 15 = 6,12,360/-
Less 1/4th towards personal Rs. 6,12,360/- - Rs. 1,53,090/- =
expenses Rs. 4,59,270/-
Towards conventional head Rs.70,000/-
Total compensation Rs. 5,29,270/-
awardable
Less amount awarded by the Rs. 5,29,270/- - Rs.3,37,600/-
Tribunal Rs. 1,91,670/-
Enhanced amount of Rs. 1,91,670/-
compensation
In view of the above, the appellants-claimants would be
entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 1,91,670/-. Insurance
company is directed to pay additional amount of Rs. 1,91,670/-
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall carry 6% interest
from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is
(5 of 5) [CMA-2628/2008]
made. The learned Tribunal shall disburse Rs.25,000/- in the Joint
Saving Bank Account of the claimants and the balance amount of
the enhanced compensation be invested in any Nationalised Bank
for a period of three years and interest accrued on the deposit
shall be paid to the appellants-claimants on monthly basis.
Since, recovery rights have been given to the Insurance
Company, Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced
amount of compensation to the claimants and recover the same
from the driver and owner of the vehicle in terms of the award
passed by the Tribunal.
Consequently, the appeal is disposed of.
All pending application(s) stand disposed of.
Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI /7
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
