Rajasthan High Court
Harpoolsingh And Anr vs B V Shanthveerappa And Anr on 4 February, 2022
Bench: Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4360/2017
1. Harphoolsingh, S/o Rameshwarlal, R/o Village Dholas,
Tehsil Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar.
2. Santosh Devi, W/o Shri Harphool, R/o Village Dholas,
Tehsil Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar.
----Appellants
Versus
1. B.V. Shanthveerappa S/o Shri Veerappa, R/o A-9 F 4856
KSTC Bus No. K A 09 F 4856 Driver Batch No. 6695 K R,
Nagar Depot Maisoor Division, Distt. Maisoor Karnataka
(Driver Of Vehicle KSTC Bus No. K A 09 F 4856)
2. Manager KSRTC Bus K R, Nagar Depot Maisoor Division,
Distt. Maisoor (Karnataka)
(Registered Owner Of Vehicle Ksrtc Bus No. K A 09 F
4856)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Dhiwan for
Mr. Akshat Choudhary through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.V. Nandwana for respondent
No.2 through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Judgment
04/02/2022
1. The appellants-claimants are not satisfied with the award of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, made in Motor Accident
Claims Case No.186/2013 on 18.05.2017. Hence, this appeal
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of
the award.
2. The appellants had claimed Rs.85,40,000/- whereas the
Tribunal awarded Rs.5,12,174/-.
(2 of 4) [CMA-4360/2017]
3. The appellants are parents of Suresh Kumar. On 01.07.2012
Suresh Kumar was coming on a Motor Cycle at about 9:50PM, a
Bus bearing Registration No.KA-09F-4856 belonging to Karnataka
State Road Transport Corporation came rashly and negligently
from behind and dashed the Motor Cycle causing instant death of
Suresh Kumar. At the time of accident, Suresh Kumar was
working as Granite Cutting Machine Operator in Shivalik Granite
Factory situated at Anchepalya Village, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkar and
was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Suresh Kumar was aged
about 25 years at the time of his death. The accident is proved by
documentary evidence such as FIR, Post Mortem Report and
charge sheet submitted in the case along with statement of the
eye-witnesses of the occurrence recorded at the time of incident.
One of the claimant Harphool Singh was examined as a witness
before the Tribunal and he deposed that the deceased was
unmarried aged about 25 years having monthly income of
Rs.15,000/- as he was working in the referred Granite Factory as
Operator of the Granite Cutting Machine.
4. Since after notice, no one appeared before the Tribunal on
behalf of the respondents, hence the award was made ex-parte.
5. Mr. Gaurav Dhiwan, learned counsel for the appellants
contends that in absence of any material evidence to disbelieve
the testimony of one of the claimant, the Tribunal should not have
rejected the monthly income of the deceased and ought not to
have taken the income of a daily wager for choosing multiplicand.
Likewise considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate
multiplier as held in Sarla Verma's case and affirmed in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others,
reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, would have
(3 of 4) [CMA-4360/2017]
been of 18 but the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13, though
the Tribunal was aware of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sarla Verma's case as the impugned order reveals that on
the basis of that judgment, 50% of the income was deducted for
personal expenses as the deceased Suresh Kumar was a bachelor.
6. On the other hand, Mr. H.V. Nandwana, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 contends that the Tribunal has awarded "just
compensation". In absence of any documentary proof of income of
the deceased, the settled principle is that the amount payable to a
daily wager is appropriate multiplicand. Moreover, the Tribunal has
awarded 50% as future prospects of the deceased, which should
not be more than 40% as held in Pranay Sethi's case in the
matter of self-employed person or a person having no permanent
employment.
7. The statutory requirement is that the Tribunal should pay
"just compensation" while reaching to a figure of "just
compensation", the settled principles ought to be followed. The
amount of compensation should not be exorbitant to be a bonanza
nor it should be so meagre to make a mockery of compensation.
Only for the absence of documentary evidence of the income of
the deceased, the claimed amount should not have been discarded
by the Tribunal as the same was not exorbitant or unreasonable to
a realistic assessment of the situation on the date of accident.
Neither it was challenged nor disproved that the deceased was a
Granite Cutting Machine Operator, hence, the income of Rs. 500/-
per day was not exorbitant one. Therefore, this Court has no
hesitation to accept the claim of the appellants that the deceased
was earning of Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly
deducted 50% of the aforesaid amount for personal expenses of
(4 of 4) [CMA-4360/2017]
the deceased as he was a bachelor. After deducting the aforesaid
50%, the loss comes to Rs.7,500/- which is multiplied by 12
months and further multiplied by multiplier of 18, considering the
age of the deceased, the amount comes to Rs.16,20,000/-. 40%
of this amount is payable under the head future prospects of the
deceased, considering his age and the fact that he was not on a
permanent post. After addition of 40%, i.e. Rs.6,48,000/- the
amount comes to Rs.22,68,000/-. Besides the aforesaid, each of
the appellants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- under the heading "loss
of consortium" and Rs.15,000/- each under the heading loss of
estate as well as for "funeral expenses". Thus, under the
conventional head Rs.1,10,000/- is also payable. Now the total
compensation payable comes to Rs.23,78,000/-. The Tribunal has
awarded 7% of simple interest from the date of application. This
Court is not inclined to interfere with the percentage of interest
ordered by the Tribunal.
Therefore, the respondents are directed to make payment of
this amount minus already paid along with 7% interest within
three months to the appellants to avoid Penal interest of 12%
payable from the date of default till the date of realization.
8. The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
Pcg/15
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
