Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Vimla Devi W/O Late Shri ... vs Shankar Lal S/O Shri Mangilal Mali on 30 June, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4997/2019
1. Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Late Shri Tarachand (Wife), Aged
About 52 Years, R/o Harijan Basti, Minerva Cinema Ke
Peeche, Thana Lalkothi, Jaipur (Raj)
2. Ajay Kumar S/o Shri Tarachand (Son), Aged About 38
Years, R/o Harijan Basti, Minerva Cinema Ke Peeche,
Thana Lalkothi, Jaipur (Raj)
3. Manju Devi D/o Late Shri Tarachand (Daughter), Aged
About 36 Years, R/o Harijan Basti, Minerva Cinema Ke
Peeche, Thana Lalkothi, Jaipur (Raj)
4. Vijay S/o Late Shri Tarachand (Son), Aged About 32
Years, R/o Harijan Basti, Minerva Cinema Ke Peeche,
Thana Lalkothi, Jaipur (Raj)
5. Dinesh S/o Late Shri Tarachand (Son), Aged About 30
Years, R/o Harijan Basti, Minerva Cinema Ke Peeche,
Thana Lalkothi, Jaipur (Raj)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Shankar Lal S/o Shri Mangilal Mali, R/o 4342, Topkhane
Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj) (Vehicle Driver
Auto Rikshaw No. R.j.-14-P.b.-0838)
2. Sarfaraz S/o Shri Taj Mohammed, R/o Babu Ka Teeba,
Chainpuriya Basti, Thana Ramganj, Jaipur (Raj) (Vehicle
Owner/insured Auto Rikshaw No. R.j.-14-P.b.-0838)
3. Tata A.i.g General Insurance Company Limited Through
Manager, Office H.s.b.c. Bank Building, C-Scheme, Jaipur
(Raj) (Insurance Company Auto Rikshaw No. R.j.-14-P.b.-
0838)
4. Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Phoolchand, R/o Purohit Pada, A-
27, Harizan Basti, Brahmapuri, Getor Road, Jaipur (Raj)
(Driver And Registered Owner And Insured Vehicle Motor
Cycle No. Rj-52-52M-3228)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2022 at 09:16:47 PM)
(2 of 6) [CMA-4997/2019]
5. The New India Assurance Company Limited Through
Regional Manager, Regional Office First, Nehru Place, Tonk
Road, Jaipur (Raj) (Insurance Company Vehicle Motor
Cycle No. Rj-52-52M-3228)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rajni Vyas for R-3
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
30/06/2022
Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants-
appellants against the judgment and award dated 14.06.2019
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jaipur
Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in
Motor Claim Case No.863/2015 whereby the claim petition filed by
the claimants-appellants has been allowed and the respondent-
Insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation of
Rs.17,68,138/- to the claimants-appellants.
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.17,68,138/- under
various heads in favour of the claimants-appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants has made a limited prayer
before this Court that the Tribunal deducted the personal expenses
of the deceased as ½, while as per the judgment of Sarla Verma
v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC
(3 of 6) [CMA-4997/2019]
121, 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses should have
been done.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on
the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Santosh Kanwar & ors.
Reported in 2021(2) RAR 525 (Raj.). Therefore, learned
counsel prayed that the award passed by the Tribunal needs
suitable enhancement.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-
Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the
claim petition of the appellants has correctly taken into
consideration all the factors while calculating the award in this
case on the anvil of the evidence produced before it. Thus, the
award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by
this Court.
She further submits that the Tribunal has taken into
consideration the fact that the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are major
sons and married daughter of the deceased and in any case, they
cannot be treated as dependants of the deceased and this fact
was taken into consideration by the Tribunal that it is only the wife
of the deceased, who was dependant upon the deceased. Hence,
no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal while passing the
impugned award.
She further submits that the impugned judgment and award
does not call for any interference by this Court. However, she is
not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel
for the appellant with respect to recomputation of the award in the
light of judgment passed in the case of Sarla Verma (supra).
(4 of 6) [CMA-4997/2019]
I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone
through the judgment dated 14.06.2019 as well as the other
relevant documents available on record.
Admittedly, appellants No. 2 to 4 are major sons and married
daughter of the deceased, hence, in any case, they cannot be
treated as dependants upon the deceased. But at the same time,
this fact cannot be disputed in the light of judgment of Sarla
Verma (supra) that the Tribunal should have deducted 1/3rd
personal expenses but instead of doing so, the Tribunal has
deducted ½ personal expenses towards the personal expenses of
the deceased.
The Coordinate Bench of this Court has held in the case of
Santosh Kanwar (supra) that the maximum deduction towards
personal expenses was treated as 1/3rd even if the dependant is
one in number only. Para Nos. 10, 14, 17, 18 & 19 of the said
judgment reads as under:-
"10. It was submitted that a plain reading of the judgment
in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) would indicate that in
case of a married person, the maximum deduction,
towards personal expenses would be one-third, even if
dependent is one only.
14. The facts are not in dispute and even quantum of
compensation also is not in dispute. The only dispute
pertains to the deduction for personal expenses applied by
the Tribunal, the application of split multiplier and the
deduction for the amount of pension to be received by the
wife of the deceased.
17. A plain reading of the above determination reveals
that in case of a deceased, who is married, the deduction
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased
should be one-third and the said one-third would extend in
case the dependents are up to 3.
18. In view thereof, the plea sought to be raised by
learned counsel for the appellants on the said aspect has
no substance.
19. In fact in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) 50%
deduction has only been envisaged in case of death of a
bachelor.
(5 of 6) [CMA-4997/2019]
Thus, in the light of aforesaid judgments, the award is
recomputed as under:-
Loss of income of deceased Rs. 33,96,276/-
as assessed by the Tribunal
1/3rd deduction towards Rs. 33,96,276/- - Rs. 11,32,092/-
personal expenses of Rs. 22,64,184/-
deceased
Loss of income of Rs.16,98,138/-
dependants as awarded by
the Tribunal
Less amount awarded by the Rs.22,64,184/- - Rs. 16,98,138/-
Tribunal
Enhanced amount of Rs. 5,66,046/-
compensation
In view of the above, the appellant-claimant No.1 (wife)
would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 5,66,046/-.
Insurance company is directed to pay an additional amount of Rs.
5,66,046/-within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall carry
6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual
payment is made.
The learned Tribunal shall disburse Rs.1,00,000/- in the
Saving Bank Account of the claimant (wife) and the balance
amount of the enhanced compensation be invested in any
Nationalised Bank for a period of three years and interest accrued
on the deposit shall be paid to the appellant-claimant on monthly
basis.
Consequently, the appeal is disposed of.
All pending application(s) stand disposed of.
Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.
(6 of 6) [CMA-4997/2019]
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI /64
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
