Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Parvati And Ors vs Naresh Kaswan And Ors on 4 April, 2022
Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 915/2003
1. Parvati W/o Sh. Jagdish Rai, b/c Brahamin, Tiwari.
2. Rekha Wd/o Sh. Udaipal Tiwari, b/c Brahamin, Tiwari.
3. Divatya @ Pappu D/o Sh. Udaipal, minor through her natural
guardian mother Smt. Rekha.
4. Jagdish Rai S/o Sh. Sohanlal, b/c Brahamin, Tiwari.
All residents of 53 N.P., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, Distt.
Sriganganagar.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Naresh Kaswan S/o Sh. Surajbhan Kaswan, R/o Modha
Singhana, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, Haryana.
2. Tiverendra Kumar S/o Sh. Om Parkash, b/c Jat, R/o Modha
Singhana, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, Haryana.
3. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sirsa, Haryana,
through its Branch Manager.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijay Aggarwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kaushik
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
JUDGMENT
04/04/2022
1. The instant enhancement appeal is directed against the
judgment and award dated 10.07.2003 passed by the learned
(2 of 5) [CMA-915/2003]
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raisinghnagar (hereinafter
referred to as 'the leanred tribunal' for short) in Civil Misc. (MACT)
case No.5/2002, whereby the claim petition filed by claimants-
appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short
hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") was partly allowed and the
leanred tribunal granted compensation to the tune of
Rs.6,26,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
2. Facts in brief are that on 29.10.2001 at about 2:00 PM
when deceased Udaipal was travelling from Hanumangarh to
Pilibanga on his motorcycle, then at Dabli Bus Stand, a Jeep
bearing No. HR-24F-0544 (hereinafter referred to as "the
offending vehicle"), which was being driven rashly and negligently
by the driver Naresh Kaswan, hit the deceased Udaipal, resulting
into grievous injuries, and ultimately death of Sh. Udaipal.
3. In the claim petition, the claimants-appellants claimed
that the deceased Udaipal was a practicing lawyer and was
earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month from his profession and a
sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month was also earning by him while doing
cultivation work. It was also stated that the offending vehicle was
insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd.
4. The appellants-claimants being mother, wife, daughter
and father filed the aforesaid claim application under Section 166
of the Act before the learned Tribunal claiming total compensation
of Rs.82,80,222/-. It was also pleaded in the claim application
that the deceased was 24 years' young at the time of accident.
5. The Tribunal framed the usual issues for consideration
and while deciding the claim application held that the driver of the
offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident by rash
and negligent driving. The claimants were held entitled to
(3 of 5) [CMA-915/2003]
compensation and thus, the claim petition was partly allowed and
as against the total claim of Rs.82,80,222/-, the claimants were
awarded a sum of Rs.6,26,000/- as compensation. The non-
applicants were held jointly and severely responsible to indemnify
the award amount. As these findings have not been challenged by
any of the non-applicants, the same have become final against
them. The only issue, which thus, remains for consideration is as
to whether the appellants are entitled to any enhancement in the
compensation.
6. Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants vehemently contended that the claimants-appellants
came out with a specific case that at the time of accident,
deceased Udaipal was 24 years' young and the learned Tribunal
has assessed the income at Rs.4,500/- per month, but the learned
Tribunal failed to assess the future prospects as the deceased was
young, promising and brilliant lawyer, and therefore, his earning
could not be assumed to be static at Rs.4,500/-. It was also
submitted that the earning of a lawyer increases after getting
experience and therefore, it is submitted that the loss of earnings
at Rs.4,500/- at that point of time is too low and loss of earnings
on a dynamic pattern should have been taken to be at least
Rs.20,000/- per month aggregating to Rs.2,40,000/- per year and
after taking 1/3rd deduction therefrom, the earnings available to
the family should have been taken to be Rs.1,60,000/- per year.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that
the multiplier of only 17 has been applied in the present case,
whereas the same ought to have been 20 as per the ratio laid
down in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
(4 of 5) [CMA-915/2003]
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted
that the learned Tribunal has not award a single penny in relation
to the loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of parental
consortium, funeral expenses etc.
8. Per contra Mr. Anil Kaushik learned counsel appearing
for the respondents submit that the learned Tribunal has rightly
passed the impugned judgment and award and there is no scope
for enhancing the said amount of compensation.
9. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
10. The learned Tribunal held the age of the deceased to be
24 years' at the time of accident and has also applied the
multiplier of 17, but has failed to assessed the future prospects
which a young, promising and brilliant lawyer could earn during
his life time. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra) at least 40% of the future prospects is to be added to the
monthly income of the deceased and the multiplier of 18 also to
be applied in the present case looking to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
11. Thus, in view of what has been discussed above and
looking to the age of the deceased at the time of accident viz 24
years', the following computation deserves to be just, proper and
reasonable for deciding the quantum of enhance compensation
awardable to the appellants.
Sr. No. Particulars Amount
A. Loss of dependency
(5 of 5) [CMA-915/2003]
i) Income Assessed Rs.4,500/- per month
ii) Future Prospects (40%) Rs.1,800/- per month
Total Rs. 6,300/- per month
(-) 1/3rd deduction Rs. 2100/-
(personal consumption)
Total = Rs.4200/- per month
i) Multiplied by 12 (yearly Rs.4200 X 12 = Rs.50,400/-
income) Rs.50,400X 18 =Rs.9,07,200/-
ii) Multiplier (18)
B. Convention Heads
i) Funeral expenses + Rs. 70,000/-
loss of estate + loss of
consortium.
ii) Loss of parental Rs. 40,000/-
consortium
Total compensation Rs. 10,17,200/-
C. Already awarded amount Rs. 06,26,000/-
(-)
D. Total Enhanced amount Rs. 03,91,200/-
12. The claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 6% on the
enhanced amount of Rs.3,91,200/- from the date of filing of the
claim petition.
13. The enhanced amount shall be distributed to the
claimants as per the terms and conditions enumerated by the
learned Tribunal.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The
impugned award dated 10.07.2003 passed by the learned Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raisinghnagar is modified and
the appellants are held entitled for enhanced compensation as
indicated above.
15. Record be sent back forthwith.
16. No cost.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
105-Jagjeet/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
