Rajasthan High Court
Smt Champa Joshi And Others vs Dileep And Others on 17 February, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6440/2011
1. Smt Champa Joshi wife of Lt. Sh. Shiv Dutt Joshi
2. Kum. Anita Joshi daughter of Lt. Sh. Shiv Dutt Joshi
3. Kum. Minakshi Joshi daughter of Lt. Sh. Shiv Dutt Joshi
(Minor through guardian i.e. Mother Smt. Champa Joshi)
All residents of Plot No.39, Ramdwara, Near Dalda Factory,
Jaipur and also resident of 166, Man Hinglaj Nagar B, Gandhi
Path West, Lalarpura, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Dileep @ Daleep son of Sh. Karna Singh, resident of Naleesa,
P.S. Behrod, District Alwar (Raj.) (Driver)
2. Smt. Rukmani Devi wife of Sh. Shankar Lal Sindhi, resident of
Plot No.241, Sindhi Colony, Bani Park, Jaipur (Raj.) (Owner)
3. Umesh Kumar Tulsani, resident of Plot No.241, Sindhi Colony,
Bani Park, Jaipur (Raj.), (Owner)
4. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office,
Vishal Chamber, Tonk Road, Jaipur through Regional Manager.
----Non-claimants-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish Khandal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
17/02/2022
The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants against the
judgment and award dated 28.04.2011, passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge (Fast Track
No.7), Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'Tribunal') in MAC Case
No.405/2005 (1946/2004), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a
(2 of 4) [CMA-6440/2011]
sum of Rs. 6,72,700/- on account of death of Shiv Dutt Joshi,
which occurred on 22.11.2001.
Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the
evidence available on record and hearing both the sides, decided
the claim petition of the appellants and awarded compensation of
Rs.6,72,700/- under various heads in favour of the appellants-
claimants.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that deceased
was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and he was
working as Class IV employee in the department of Sales Tax and
at the time of his death he was earning Rs.5020/-. Learned
counsel submitted that no amount towards future prospects has
been awarded in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi & Ors. : (2017) 16 SCC 680. Learned counsel further
submitted that under the head of conventionalhead a sum of
Rs.30,000/- has been awarded while the claimants-appellants are
entitled to get Rs.70,000/-. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that
under these circumstances, the impugned judgment and award
needs suitable enhancement.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company submitted that the learned Tribunal while deciding the
claim petition of the appellants has rightly taken into consideration
the factors while calculating the amount of compensation, in the
case after evaluating the evidence available on the record.
Learned counsel further submitted that the judgment dated
28.04.2011 does not call for any intereference by this Court and
lastly, he argued that the learned Tribunal has erroneously applied
the multiplier of 16, looking to the age of the deceased, while as
(3 of 4) [CMA-6440/2011]
per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation: (2009) 6 SCC 121, and as
per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), the multiplier of 15
should have been applied instead of 16.
Learned counsel for the respondent, however, are not in a
position to controvert the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellants with respect to re-computation of the
award in the present case in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of 'Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra)' and
'Pranay Sethi (supra)'.
I have considered the submissions made at bar and gone
through the judgment dated 28.04.2011, as well as the other
relevant documents available on the record. it is not in dispute
that the age of the deceased was 38 years when the accident
occurred and it is also not in dispute that the deceased was a
Government Servant and he was posted as Class IV employee in
the Department of Sales Tax when the accident occurred. In the
light of the judgment passed in the case of Sarla Verma (supra),
the multiplier of 15 is required to be applied in the present case
while calculating the award.
Since, no compensation has been awarded in the head of
future prospects, the amount to the extent of 50% is to be added
towards future prospects. The appellants are also entitled to get
Rs. 70,000/- in the conventional head, in the light of the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Pranay Sethi (supra)".
In view of the material available on record and the law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the
appellants-claimants are entitled to get compensation in the
following terms:-
(4 of 4) [CMA-6440/2011]
Monthly income Rs. 5020/-
Annual income Rs. 5020 x12 = Rs.60,240/- per annum
60,240 X 15 = Rs.9,03,600/-
Less 1/3 towards personal Rs. 9,03,600/- - Rs. 3,01,200/-
expenses = Rs. 6,02,400/-
Add 50 per cent towards Rs.6,02,400 + Rs. 3,01,200
future prospects = Rs. 9,03,600/-
Add general expenses Rs. 70,000/-
(conventional)
Total compensation Rs. 9,03,600+70,000 =Rs. 9,73,600/-
awardable
Less amount awarded by the Rs. 9,73,600 - Rs.6,72,700 =
Tribunal Rs.3,00,900/-
Enhanced amount of Rs. 3,00,900/-
compensation
In view of the above, the appellants-claimants would be
entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 3,00,900/-, which shall carry
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition
till the actual payment is made.
Consequently, the appeal is disposed of. The enhanced
compensation shall be paid by the Insurance Company within a
period of six weeks of this judgment. The Tribunal shall disburse
the enhanced money through the joint saving bank account of the
claimants.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI /8
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
