Rajasthan High Court
Smt Manju Devi And Ors vs Amit Kumar Sharma And Anr on 23 February, 2022
Bench: Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4279/2017
1. Smt. Manju Devi W/o Late Shri Sohan Lal Sood, aged 48
years
2. Hitansh S/o Late Shri Sohan Lal Sood, aged 4 years,
Minor Through His Natural Guardian And Mother Smt.
Manju Devi W/o Late Shri Sohan Lal Sood
Both residents of House No. 48, Ganesh Nagar III,
Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Claimants-Appellants
Versus
1. Amit Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Nanagram Sharma, R/o
204, Mohalla Bada Bas, Bhanpur Kala, Tehsil Jamwa
Ramgadh, District Jaipur (Raj.) (Driver as well as Owner
of Motorcycle No. RJ-14-BX-0976)
2. The National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office,
Near Jyoti Nagar Turn, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur
(Raj.) Through Regional Manager. (Ins. Co. Motorcycle
No. RJ-14-BX-0976)
----Non-Claimants-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Sharma for
Mr. Sandeep Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishipal Agarwal through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Judgment Reserved on : 05/02/2022
Judgment Pronounced on : 23/02/2022
1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Appellants are not satisfied
with the quantum of compensation decided by Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan in Claim Case
No.962/2014.
(2 of 4) [CMA-4279/2017]
By the impugned award dated 09.05.2017, the learned
Tribunal awarded Rs.29,64,000/- along with 6% interest from the
date of application against claim of Rs.97,47,152/-.
2. In brief, the case of the claimants is that Sohan Lal Sood
aged about 51 years, who was husband of claimant-Manju Devi
and father of claimant-Hitansh, was crossing road to purchase
medicines on 20.09.2014 at about 07:30 p.m. At the same time, a
rash and negligent motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-14-BX-
0976 dashed against him causing serious injuries which resulted in
death of Sohan Lal on 21.09.2014 while getting treatment in the
referred hospital. For the accident aforesaid, Galta Gate Police
Station case No.335 dated 21.09.2014 was registered and after
investigation, police submitted charge-sheet. Ex.12 is the
certificate of insurance which shows that the offending motorcycle
was insured with respondent No.2-National Insurance Company
Limited. The factum of motor vehicle accident and insurance of the
vehicle is proved by the oral and documentary evidences available
on record and are not challenged in this appeal.
3. Mr. Kapil Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants
contends that without any basis, the Tribunal deducted Rs.2338/-
against income-tax payment whereas the salary certificate of the
deceased would show that at the time of his death, Sohan Lal was
paying Rs.1244/- as income-tax. Grievance is that 1/3rd deduction
against personal expenses of the deceased is also not justified.
The learned Tribunal has not considered award of any amount
against future prospect of the deceased. Multiplier of 11 has been
applied by the Tribunal which should have been at much higher
(3 of 4) [CMA-4279/2017]
pedestal considering the prospect of deceased. The interest should
have been 12% instead of 6% as awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for Natonal
Insurance Company contends that just and adequate
compensation has been decided by the Tribunal and the statutory
purpose is not to make excessive compensation.
5. Considering the number of dependency which includes the
wife and a son aged about one and half years, 1/3 rd deduction for
personal expenses of the deceased is consistent with the standard
adopted in Sarla Verma's case reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121.
Therefore, the same requires no interference. Likewise considering
the age of the deceased which was between 50 to 55 years, the
appropriate multiplier would be of 11. Hence, the same requires
no interference.
Ex.15 is salary certificate issued by the Employer in respect
of the deceased, who was a Clerk in the State Bank of Bikaner and
Jaipur. The said certificate shows that gross salary of the deceased
was Rs.32,397.70/- including Rs.225/- as transport allowance.
The deduction shows that Rs.1244/- was being deducted against
income-tax. Deposition of A.W.3-N.K.Gaur, who is the Chief
Manager in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, would show that
the monthly salary of the deceased in July, 2014 (the month of
accident) was enhanced to Rs.37,693.95/- w.e.f. 01.11.2012.
Thus, the actual monthly income of the deceased on the date of
death was Rs.37,693.95/- taken as Rs.37,694/-.
There is nothing on record to suggest that on the enhanced
amount, double income-tax would be payable. Therefore,
(4 of 4) [CMA-4279/2017]
permissible exclusion for the purpose of income-tax may be taken
as Rs.1500/- instead of Rs.1244/- after enhancement of monthly
salary. Thus, Rs.1500/- against income-tax payment and Rs.225/-
which was transport allowance, must have been spent against
transportation, are fit to be excluded to ascertain the loss of
dependency. Thus, the loss of dependency is calculated as
Rs.37,694/- minus Rs.1725/- equal to Rs.35,969/-. 1/3 rd is
deductible for personal expenses of the deceased. After deduction
amount comes to Rs.23,979/-. 15% of this amount is payable
against future prospect as decided in Pranay Sethi's case
reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. Thus, multiplicand is calculated
as Rs.23,979+3597(15%)=Rs.27,576X12=Rs.3,30,912/-. This is
multiplied with multiplier of 11, the amount comes to
Rs.36,40,032/-.
6. Besides the aforesaid, both the claimants are entitled for
Rs.40,000/- each for loss of consortium and Rs.30,000/- for
funeral expenses and loss to the estate. Thus, the total payable
compensation is calculated at Rs.37,50,032/-.
7. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of
interest decided by the Tribunal. Other findings of the Tribunal
including directions for disbursement of compensation amount are
hereby affirmed.
The appeal stands allowed to the extent aforesaid.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
Hemant
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
