Sh. Manaand Ors vs Sh. Kuka And Ors ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9024 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:37763]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 59/2001

1. Sh. Mana S/o Shri Kishna Ji Rawat (Father of Deceased)

2. Smt. Puri Bai W/o Shri Mana Ji Rawat (Mother of Deceased)

3. Smt. Shankari Bai W/o Late Shri Sawa Ji Rawat (Wife of Deceased)

4. Shri Madanlal S/o late Shri Sawat Ji Rawat, MINOR (Son of Deceased) through his mother & natural Guardian Smt. Shankari Bai (above No.3)

All above Nos.1 to 4, R/o village Ambuwa, Post Umarda, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Shri Kuka Ram S/o Shri Uda Ji Gameti, R/o Tulsidas Ji Ki Saray, P.S.Dabok, District Udaipur (Raj.) Driver RSJ-1297

2. Shri Meghraj S/o Shri Bhura Ji Dangi, R/o Govla Ki Ghati, Post Dabok, P.S. Pratapnagar, District Udaipur (Raj.) Owner RSJ 1297

3. The Oriental Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Udaipur, District Udaipur (Rajasthan)

4. Shri Nathu S/o Naru Ji Rawat, R/o Umarda, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (Raj.) Driver RJ 27 G-239

5. Shri Jaganatth S/o Shri Hira Ji Dangi, R/o Bhallo Ka Guda, Tehsil Girwa, Post Beechri, District Udaipur (Raj.) Owner RJ-27 G-239

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr.Tribhuvan Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.U.C.S.Singhvi, Adv.

Ms.Rakhi Choudhary, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Judgment

03/11/2023

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated

13.09.2000 passed in M.A.C. Case No.232 of 1993 on the file of

[2023:RJ-JD:37763] (2 of 5) [CMA-59/2001]

the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur

wherein and whereby the claim of the appellants was partly

allowed while granting compensation of Rs.1,44,800/- with

interest @ 12% per annum.

2. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants preferred the

present appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is

that the Tribunal has taken meager monthly income of the

deceased as Rs.1000/- contrary to the evidence on record. It is

also the contention that the deceased was 25 years of age at the

time of accident and the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also

on wrong considering the age of the deceased. Lastly, it is also

contended that the compensation awarded was not proper and

deduction towards personal expenses was also not proper.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel representing the Insurance

Company contended that the profession of the deceased was not

properly proved and the Tribunal has considered the monthly

income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages i.e.

payable for the labour at the prevalent rate and accordingly, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and

requires no interference of this Court.

5. The evidence of claimant No.1-Mana shows that the

deceased was a loader and working on a truck and he was getting

an income at the rate of Rs.50-60 per day. He also stated that the

[2023:RJ-JD:37763] (3 of 5) [CMA-59/2001]

deceased was contributing Rs.1500/- to the family from the

income earned by him; the profession of the deceased was a

loader and alternatively, also claimed that the deceased was also

working as an agricultural labour as and when there was no work

of loading truck. Except self-serving statement of the claimant

No.1, there is no other evidence to corroborate such fact. The

owner of the truck with whom the deceased was employed, was

not examined. Considering the minimum wages, which were

payable to unskilled labour at the time of accident, this Court feels

that monthly income arrived by the Tribunal is just and proper,

and requires no interference.

6. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards

future prospects. The deceased was aged below 40 years and he

was self employed. Therefore, there ought to be an addition of

40% to the annual income of the deceased towards future

prospects. 40% of the monthly income of Rs.1000 comes to

Rs.400. The monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.1400/-.

Accordingly, the total annual income comes to 1400 X

12=Rs.16,800/-.

7. The deceased was survived by wife, son and parents and the

appropriate deduction towards personal expenses shall be 1/4.

The Tribunal deducted 1/3 of the income towards his personal

expenses, which is incorrect. The one fourth deduction comes to

Rs.4,200/- (16,800 X 1/4). The annual income after deduction of

personal expenses, is computed at Rs.12,600/-.

[2023:RJ-JD:37763] (4 of 5) [CMA-59/2001]

8. The appropriate multiplier for the age group of the deceased

is 17. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 12, which is perverse.

Therefore, the multiplier of 17 which is appropriate in this case is

adopted for calculating the amount of compensation. The total

amount of compensation towards loss of dependency comes to

12,600 (annual income) X 17 (multiplier)=Rs.2,14,200/-.

9. The Tribunal granted Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses to

the claimants, which is on the lower side. As per the principle held

by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited

v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, reported in 2018 LAW Suit (SC)

904, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- Therefore, the

compensation towards funeral expenses is enhanced from

Rs.2000/- to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal

has granted Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony, loss of

consortium, lost of estate in all, which is incorrect. The

compensation to be granted towards the loss of estate shall be

Rs.15000/- and the consortium for each of the claimant shall be

Rs.40,000/-(total compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of

consortium).

10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the

compensation from Rs.1,44,800/- to Rs.4,04,000/-. (Four Lakhs

and Four Thousand Rupees only). The enhanced compensation

shall be paid with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the

date of deposit. The respondents No.1, 2 & 3 are jointly and

severely liable to pay compensation and the enhanced amount

shall be deposited with interest within a period of two months

[2023:RJ-JD:37763] (5 of 5) [CMA-59/2001]

from the date of receipt of copy of this order, on such deposit, the

claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount. No order as

to costs.

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 32-NK/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)