Rajasthan High Court
Smt Surekha Sharma vs Jaypal Singh Shekhawat And Ors on 2 March, 2022
Bench: Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4484/2017
1. Smt. Surekha Sharma Wife of Shri Narendra Sharma, Aged
about 42 years,
2. Narendra Sharma S/o Shri Fakir Chand Sharma, Aged about
46 years,
All resident of Plot No.62-A, Mansa Nagar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Jaypal Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Daal Singh Shekhawat, R/o
Dhani Tandali Rajput, Lisadiya, Srimadhopur, Sikar (Driver
Tractor No.RJ-14-RA-3932)
2. Hitesh Meena S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena, R/o A-113,
Friends Colony, Sirsi Road, Jaipur (Owner Tractor No.RJ-14-RA-
3932)
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. through Regional
Manager, Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Policy No.-
1413003115P100339372, Valid from 10.04.2015 to 09.04.2016
(Insurance Company Tractor No.RJ-14-RA-3932)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur on behalf of
Mr. K.N. Tiwari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Bhati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Judgment
02/03/2022
1. The appellants are not satisfied with the quantum of
compensation decided by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim
Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan by award dated 04.07.2017
passed in MAC Case No.655/2015. The learned Tribunal has
awarded Rs.4,43,000/- against the claim of Rs.62,00,000/-.
(2 of 4) [CMA-4484/2017]
2. The appellants are parents of Sarthak Sharma, aged about
sixteen years, who was a student of Class-XI at the time of
accident. On 08.05.2015, Sarthak was going on a Motorcycle
bearing registration No.RJ-14-BN-1949 along with his father. Near
Suman Nursery, a Tractor bearing registration No.RJ-14-RA-3932
dashed against the motorcycle due to rash and negligent driving
of the Tractor, as a result whereof, Sarthak fell on the road and
thereafter crushed under the wheels of the Tractor. The Tractor
was owned by respondent No.2 and was insured with respondent
No.3-United India Insurance Company Ltd. The factum of motor
vehicle accident and insurance of the tractor with respondent No.3
are well proved by the evidences on the record and are not under
challenge in this appeal.
3. The learned Tribunal took Rs.3,000/- per month as notional
income of the deceased and 50% of the same was added for loss
of future expectancy. Out of total Rs.4,500/-, 50% was deducted
for personal expenses of the deceased. Taking multiplicand as
Rs.2,250/-, the same was multiplied with 12 months for getting
yearly multiplicand and multiplier of 14 was applied considering
the age of the claimants. The learned Tribunal further awarded
Rs.25,000/- to each of the claimants under the head loss of filial
consortium and Rs.15,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses.
4. Mr. Vinay Mathur, learned counsel for the appellants contends
that the learned Tribunal adopted wrong multiplier of 14, rather it
would have been 18 considering the age of the deceased.
Moreover, Rs.40,000/- should have been awarded for each of the
parents, who are appellants herein under the head for loss of
consortium as decided in Magma General Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Nanu Ram reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Learned
(3 of 4) [CMA-4484/2017]
counsel further contends that for funeral expenses of Rs.25,000/-
should have been allowed. The rate of interest awarded by the
Tribunal was 7.5% from the date of application, whereas the
enhanced rate of interest is payable.
5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company though contends
that 'just compensation' has been awarded to the appellants,
however, does not dispute that after five judges Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16
SCC 680, the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying
the multiplier and the multiplier applicable would be as per table
mentioned in Sarla Verma's case.
6. I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the
appellants, the learned Tribunal should have applied multiplier of
18 in the facts and circumstances of this case. Likewise award
under the conventional head for loss of consortium ought to have
been Rs.40,000/- for each of the parents. There is no dispute
between the parties regarding correctness of adoption of
multiplicand by the Tribunal.
7. In the result, the payable compensation is calculated as
Rs.2250/-x12x18=Rs.4,86,000/-. Besides the aforesaid,
Rs.80,000/- is payable to the appellants under head loss of
consortium. The learned Tribunal has correctly awarded
Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. There is no need
to interfere the percentage of interest awarded by the Tribunal
considering the present interest rate of the Bank as well as the
interest rate on the date of award.
8. In the result, compensation payable is enhanced to
Rs.5,75,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make the
(4 of 4) [CMA-4484/2017]
payment of the aforesaid amount, minus already paid amount
along with the interest ordered by the Tribunal within one month
of this order, failing which 12% interest would be payable from the
date of default till realization.
9. The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
Pcg/Hemant/-6
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
