Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amar Chand And Ors vs Ram Prasad And Anr ... on 27 March, 2023
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2023/RJJD/007788]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 668/2002
1. Amar Chand S/o Harak Chand Lodha, aged 50 years.
2. Harak Chand S/o Naharmal Lodha
3. Smt. Sunder Kunwar W/o Harak Chand Lodha
4. Avinash S/o Amar Chand
5. Kumari Anuradha D/o Amar Chand
All residents of 440, Teachers Colony, Ambamata, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Ram Prasad S/o Nand Ram Mewara, R/o Gulabpura, District
Bhilwara.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, near
Shastri Nagar, Udaipur and Divisional Office at Residency
Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ayush Gehlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Modi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Judgment
27/03/2023
The present misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award
dated 26.02.2002 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident
Case Tribunal, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to, 'the Tribunal') in
Claim No.15/1998 whereby The Tribunal partly allowed the claim
petition and awarded Rs.2,62,000/- as compensation to the
appellants/claimants.
The appellants/claimants being aggrived and dissatisfied with
the compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal vide its
judgment and award dated 26.02.2002 have preferred the present
[2023/RJJD/007788] (2 of 4) [CMA-668/2002]
misc. appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation
amount.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that one Smt. Snehlata
wife of appellant/claimant No.1, daughter-in-law of
appellants/claimants No.2 and 3 and mother of
appellants/claimants No.4 and 5 died in a road accident which took
place on 17.08.1997. In the claim petition preferred before the
Tribunal, it was pleaded that the deceased-Snehlata was aged
about 42 years at the time of her death and was earning Rs.5,000/-
per month by undertaking the work of tailoring/stitching of clothes.
As per the claim petition in addition to the aforesaid work,
deceased-Snehlata also undertook the tuition of school going
children. In the claim petition, it was also stated that deceased-
Snehlata was an income tax payer and her income was at rising
trend. The appellants/claimants in the claim application filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act prayed that total
compensation to the tune of Rs.21,02,000/- may be awarded in
their favour.
The United India Insurance Company Limited (Insurer) and
Ram Prasad (Driver) were impleaded as respondent Nos.2 and 1
respectively. The Tribunal framed two issues and decided both the
issues in favour of the appellants/claimants and against the
respondents. An award of Rs.2,62,000/- as compensation was
passed in favour of the appellants/claimants against the death of
deceased-Snehlata.
Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that
the impugned judgment and award suffers from gross illegality as
the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the correct monthly
[2023/RJJD/007788] (3 of 4) [CMA-668/2002]
income of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal
has also failed to take into consideration the component of rise in
income of deceased-Snehlata by future prospects while evaluating
the compensation awarded to the claimants. Reliance was placed on
the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported
in (2017) AIR (SC) 5157.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company
supported the impugned judgment and award dated 26.02.2002. It
was submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case and the
same does not call for any interference.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and after going through the record, this Court is in
agreement with the submissions made by the appellants/claimants
that sufficient evidence was produced by the appellants/claimants
to establish monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000/- per
month. The learned Tribunal in its judgment and award dated
26.02.2002 has failed to record any reason whatsoever for not
accepting the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000/- per
month. The finding of the learned Tribunal thus, deserves to be
modified and it is held that monthly income of the deceased
deserves to be determined at Rs.5,000/- per month.
In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme
Court was pleased to hold that if the deceased was self-employed
or a person on a fixed salary and his age is between 41-45 years,
[2023/RJJD/007788] (4 of 4) [CMA-668/2002]
then the multiplier of 14 should be applied in respect of claims filed
under Motor Vehicles Act and the future prospects would be paid to
the tune of 30% of the established income. The amounts awarded
on account of other heads are also required to be changed and the
amount of compensation in the present case is required to be
computed as under:-
S.No. Heads Amount (Rs.)
1. Monthly Income 5,000/-
2. 30% of the actual income as adjustment for future 1,500/-
prospects.
3. Monthly income + 30% for future prospects 6,500/-
4. 1/4 of income as deduction towards personal expenses (1,625/-)
5. Annual Income after deduction towards personal expenses 4,875 x 12= 58,500/-
6. Age multiplier 58,500 x14 =8,19,000/-
7. Conventional heads namely Funeral Charges, Loss of 70,000/-
consortium and Loss of Estate
8. Total Compensation 8,89,000/-
9. Amount awarded by the Tribunal 2,62,000/-
10. Enhanced amount 6,27,000/-
In light of the above observations and considering the tabular
computation, the appeal is allowed in part. The total motor accident
compensation of Rs.2,62,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal to
the claimants/appellants is increased by Rs.6,27,000/- to reach a
new total of Rs.8,89,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation
shall be paid within two months along with interest @ 6% p.a. from
the date of filing of claim petition. The proportion and disbursement
shall remain same as ordered by the learned Tribunal and the
amount of compensation is modified to the above extent.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
8-KshamaD/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
