Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Lalli Devi Wife Of Late Shri ... vs Raju Lal Panchal Son Of Shri Babu ... on 28 July, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 478/2019
1. Smt. Lalli Devi Wife Of Late Shri Ramji Lal Saini, Aged
About 42 Years, Residents Of Maliyo Ki Dhani, Village Post
Madhogarh, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Krishan Kumar Saini Son Of Late Shri Ramji Lal Saini,
Aged About 26 Years, Residents Of Maliyo Ki Dhani,
Village Post Madhogarh, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Vishram Saini Son Of Late Shri Ramji Lal, Aged About 23
Years, Residents Of Maliyo Ki Dhani, Village Post
Madhogarh, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Rajesh Kumar Saini Son Of Late Shri Ramji Lal Saini,
Aged About 21 Years, Residents Of Maliyo Ki Dhani,
Village Post Madhogarh, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Harkesh Kumar Saini Son Of Late Shri Ramji Lal Saini,
Aged About 19 Years, Residents Of Maliyo Ki Dhani,
Village Post Madhogarh, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Smt Nanagi Devi Wife Of Late Shri Bhori Lal Saini,
(Deceased- Died During Pendency Of Petition) Residents
Of Maliyo Ki Dhani, Village Post Madhogarh, Tehsil Bassi,
District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellants/claimants
Versus
1. Raju Lal Panchal Son Of Shri Babu Lal Panchal, Resident
Of House No. B-96, Nag Talai, Galta Gate, Jaipur, And
Village Post Garh, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.)
(Owner Of The Offending Bus No. MH-29-6897)
2. Babulal Panchal Son Of Shri Manphool, Resident Of Village
Post Garh, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.) (Driver Of
The Offending Bus No. MH-29-6897)
3. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Through
Manager, Resigtered Offfice At E- 8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial
Area, Sitapura, Jaipur. (Insurer Of The Offending Bus No.
MH-29-6897)
----Respondents/non-claimants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agarwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
(2 of 4) [CMA-478/2019]
28/07/2022
Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants-
appellants against the judgment and award dated 18.09.2018
passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur District, Jaipur
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case
No.677/2014 whereby an amount of Rs. 6,74,800/- has been
awarded as compensation on account of death of Ramji Lal in the
accident, which occurred on 31.08.2010.
Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the
evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties,
decided the claim petition of the claimants-appellants and
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,74,800/- under
various heads in favour of the claimants-appellants.
Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that
earlier an award of Rs.5,86,660/- was passed by the Tribunal vide
its judgment and award dated 29.09.2014, against which a
miscellaneous appeal No.752/2015 was preferred before this
Court and the matter was remanded by this Court to the Tribunal
to decide issue No.4 afresh vide its order dated 19.07.2016.
Learned counsel further submits that while deciding issue No.4,
the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the
minimum wages of the deceased as Rs.115/-, as the deceased
was working as a skilled labour at the time of accident and at that
time, the prevailing wages of a skilled labour was Rs.115/- per
day as prescribed by the Department of Labour.
Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants further submits
that while deciding issue No.4, the Tribunal has also given future
prospects, but no interest on the enhanced amount i.e.
(3 of 4) [CMA-478/2019]
Rs.88,140/- was granted to the claimants-appellants with effect
from the date of filing the claim petition. He, therefore prays that
re-computation of the award in the present case may be done.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the claim
petition has correctly taken into consideration all the factors while
calculating the award in the present case on the anvil of evidence
produced before it. Thus, the judgment passed by the Tribunal
does not call for any interference by this Court. However, learned
counsel is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by
counsel for the appellants-claimants with respect to recomputation
of award in the present case.
Heard.
Considered the arguments of counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, the deceased was working as a skilled labour and
the Tribunal has seriously erred in determining the income of the
deceased as Rs. 100/- per day minimum wages, while as per the
the Notification issued by the Department of Labour, prevailing at
that relevant time, the minimum wages of the skilled labour was
Rs.115/- per day. The impugned award indicates that after
remand of the matter, the issue No.4 was decided again and a
sum of Rs.88,140/- was enhanced, but no interest has been
awarded to the claimants on the enhanced amount. Thus, the
award is recomputed as under:-
Annual income Rs. 115 x 30 x 12 = 41,400/-
Add 40 % towards future Rs.41,400/- + 16,560/-
prospects = 57,960/-
Rs.9,27,360/-
Less 1/4th amount towards Rs.9,27,360/- - Rs.2,31,840/-
(4 of 4) [CMA-478/2019]
personal expenses = Rs. 6,95,520/-
Total compensation Rs.6,95,520/-
awardable towards loss of
income (including future
prospects)
Compensation awarded by Rs.6,04,800/-
the Tribunal towards loss of
income (including future
prospects)
Enhanced amount of Rs. 90,720/-
compensation
In view of the above, the appellants-claimants would be
entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 90,720/- from the Insurance
Company. Insurance company is directed to pay additional amount
of Rs. 90,720/- in addition to the amount already awarded within
a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this judgment. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual
payment is made.
Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
All pending applications, if any stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI /65
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
