Rajasthan High Court
Smt Santosh Devi And Others vs Ramesh Kumar Saini And Othres on 10 January, 2023
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4488/2016
1. Smt Santosh Devi wife of Rameshwar
2. Abhishek Son of Rameshwar
3. Smt. Moongi Devi Wife of Baluram
4. Baluram Son of Ram Dev
All resident of Dhani Randheera, Village Late Ka Bas, Tehsil
Shahpura, District Jaipur. Appellant No.2 is minor through His
Natural Guardian Mother Santosh Devi W/o Rameshwar.
---Claimants-Appellants
Versus
1. Ramesh Kumar Saini son of Kaluram, resident of Dabar
Mohalla, Ward No.17, Shahpura, District Jaipur.
2. Rakesh Kumar Son of Prem Prakash Tailor, Resident of Ward
No.7, Near Meetha Kuwa, Shahpura, District Jaipur (Owner)
3. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. through Manager,
E-8, RIICO Sitapura, Jaipur (Insurance Company)
----Non Claimant/Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ritesh Jain, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 05.01.2023
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 10.01.2023
Claimants/Appellants (for short 'claimants') have filed the
present appeal challenging the award daterd 03.06.2016 passed
by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Shahpura, District Jaipur (for
short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.268/2012 titled as Smt.
Santosh Devi & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Kumar Saini & Ors. seeking
enhancement of compensations.
(2 of 4) [CMA-4488/2016]
Brief facts of the claim petition is that on 12.09.2012
deceased Rameshwar-husband of the claimant-Smt. Santosh Devi
was going to Shahpura Government Hospital alongwith his uncle's
son Kailash and taking food for his Bhabhi who was admitted in
the said hospital. At 7:15 PM near BSNL office, Tempo Trax No.RJ-
32-T-0314 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit the
Rameshwar, due to which Rameshwar had sustained grievous
injuries. He was admitted in the hospital and during treatment, he
died on 18.09.2012. FIR was lodged at Police Station Shahpura.
Claimants sought compensation by way claim petition before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, awarded
Rs.10,02,768/- as compensation.
Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the
Tribunal has erred in considering the income of deceased as per
minimum wages of Rs.3,510/-. Learned counsel for the claimants
submitted that claimants had produced the salary certificate of
deceased as Ex.15. Learned counsel for the claimants also
submitted that the said certificate was duly proved by witness
AW3-Sube Singh. Learned counsel for the claimants also
submitted that the Tribunal committed an error by not considering
the salary certificate. He also submitted that once the salary
certificate of the deceased was duly proved, there was no need of
filing accounts and income statement of the firm. Learned counsel
for the claimants also submitted that deceased was working as
Granite Cutting Machine Operator and he was earning Rs.9,500/-
per month. So, appeal filed by the claimants be allowed and the
judgment & award dated 03.06.2016 passed by the Tribunal needs
to be modified.
(3 of 4) [CMA-4488/2016]
Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon
the following judgments : (1) Mahammed Siddique & Anr. Vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal
No.79/2020 decided on 08.01.2020 and (2) Rajwati @ Rajjo
& Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. in
Civil Appeal No.8179/2022 decided on 09.12.2022.
Learned counsel for the respondent(s) has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and
submitted that the Tribunal has rightly observed that claimants
failed to prove the income of deceased as Rs.9,500/- per month.
So, the Tribunal rightly calculated the amount of compensation as
per Minimum Wages Act. Learned counsel for the respondent(s)
also submitted that the Tribunal wrongly allowed 50% as loss of
future prospects. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) also
submitted that as per law, 40% of the income be allowed and
appeal filed by the claimants be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the
respondent(s).
The claimants had exhibited the salary certificate of
deceased as Ex.15 and got recorded evidence of AW3-Sube Singh.
AW3- Sube Singh appeared in the witness box and duly proved
the salary certificate of the deceased. So, in my considered
opinion, in the absence of any clinching evidence on record, the
Tribunal wrongly decided the claim petition on monthly wages
basis. So, income of deceased as per salary certificate (Ex.15) is
assessed at Rs.9,500/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was
a married man and having 4 dependants. So, after deducting
(4 of 4) [CMA-4488/2016]
1/4th from his total income on account of personal expenses of
the deceased, income of the deceased is 9500 x 1/4 =2375
(9500-2375=7125) 7125x40%=2850+7125=9975. By applying
multiplier of 18 according to the age of the deceased, dependency
of the claimants comes to 9975x12x18=21,54,600/- per annum.
The claimant No.1 would be further entitled to receive Rs.50,000/-
and claimant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are also entitled to receive
Rs.25,000/- each for love and affection as awarded by the
Tribunal. Claimants are also entitled to receive Rs.25000/- towards
funeral expenses as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, claimants
would be entitled to receive Rs.21,54,600+ 50,000+ 25,000+
25,000+25,000+ 25,000 = 23,04,600/-.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed. The
impugned judgment and award dated 03.06.2016 passed by the
Tribunal is modified to the extent that claimants would be entitled
to receive Rs.23,04,600/- as compensation instead of
Rs.10,02,768/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Other terms and
conditions of the judgment shall remain unchanged.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /44
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
