Rajasthan High Court
Kalu Lal And Another vs Girdhar Singh And Others on 1 July, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4528/2016
1. Kalu Lal S/o Shri Narayan, aged 53 years,
2. Smt. Ramchandri Bai W/o Shri Kalu Lal, aged about 51
years
All R/o Village Jhunwasa, Tehsil Keshoraipatan District
Bundi Raj.
---Claimants-Appellants
Versus
1. Girdhar Singh S/o Shri Bhairu Singh, R/o Village
Jhunwasa, Tehsil Keshoraipatan District Bundi Raj.(Driver)
2. Ummed Singh S/o Shri Shanker Singh, R/o Village
Jhunwasa, Tehsil Keshoraipatan District Bundi Raj.
(Owner)
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office,
Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur Through
Regional Manager
---Non-Claimants-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Mathur, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Sarswat, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
01/07/2022
Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants-
appellants against the judgment dated 02.06.2016 passed by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bundi (Raj.) in MAC case
No.427A/2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), whereby an
amount of Rs. 4,37,900/- was awarded as compensation on
account of death of Dharamraj in the accident which occurred on
18.07.2008.
(2 of 4) [CMA-4528/2016]
Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the
evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties decided
the claim petition of the claimants-appellants awarding
compensation of RS. 4,37,900/- under various heads in favour of
the appellants-claimants.
Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that
the income of the deceased-Dharamraj was determined by
treating him as a daily-wager but while assessing his income, the
same was considered for 26 days only.
Counsel further submits that as per the judgment passed by
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jalaur Singh @
Dilawar Singh & Anr. Vs. Barkat & Ors., reported in 2012
R.A.R. 499 (Raj.) wherein the minimum wages of the deceased
were computed for 30 days instead of 26 days.
Counsel also submits that no amount towards future
prospects has been awarded in the light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR
2017 (SC) 5157.
He, therefore, prays that re-computation of the award in the
present case may be considered in the light of the judgments of
Pranay Sethi (supra) and in the light of Jalaur Singh @ Dilawar
Singh (supra).
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim
petition of the appellants-claimants has correctly taken into
consideration the factors while calculating the award in this case
on the anvil of evidence produced before it, thus, the judgment
dated 02.06.2016 does not call for any interference by this Court.
(3 of 4) [CMA-4528/2016]
Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company,
however, is not in a position to controvert the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants though the
re-computation of the award in the present case in the light of the
judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) and in the case of Jalaur Singh
@ Dilawar Singh (supra) decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court.
Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that
even as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra) excess amount under the conventional heads
has been granted by the Tribunal which is liable to revised by this
Court.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone
through the judgment dated 02.06.2016 as well as the other
materials available on record.
Admittedly, the deceased was 16 years of age at the time of
accident. The Tribunal while assessing his income on the basis of
daily-wages has computed for 26 days only.
The Tribunal should have computed daily wages of the
deceased- Dharamraj for 30 days instead of 26 days in terms of
the judgment of this Court in the case of Jalaur Singh @
Dilawar Singh (supra). Further, the amount to the extent of 40%
is required to be enhanced in the light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
Thus, the award is re-computed as under:-
Monthly income 115/- x 30 =Rs.3450/-
Annual Income Rs.3450 /- x 12 = 41,400/-
Add 40 % towards future Rs.41,400 /- + 16,560/-
prospects = 57,960/-
(4 of 4) [CMA-4528/2016]
Rs.57,960 /-x 18 =1,043,280/-
Less 1/2rd towards personal Rs. 1,043,280/- - Rs. 5,21,640/- =
expenses Rs. 5,21,640/-
Towards conventional head Rs.70,000/-
Total compensation Rs. 5,91,640/-
awardable
Less amount awarded by the Rs. 5,91,640/- - Rs.4,37,900/-
Tribunal Rs. 1,53,740/-
Enhanced amount of Rs. 1,53,740/-
compensation
Thus, an amount of Rs. 1,53,740/- is enhanced in the
present case. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to
pay the enhanced amount in addition to the already awarded
amount awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants-appellants within
a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this Judgment.
The enhanced amount shall also carry interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual
payment is made.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the above terms.
All pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Pravesh/55
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
