Rajasthan High Court
Radha Devi And Others vs Sanwar Mal Gurjar And Others ... on 5 October, 2023
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar
[2023:RJ-JP:27215]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2875/2013
1. Radha Devi W/o Kanhaiya Lal @ Kanha, By Caste Gurjar,
R/o Village Bidkichyawas, Police Station Mangaliyavas,
Ajmer.
2. Kanhaiya Lal @ Kanha S/o Surajmal, By Caste Gurjar, R/o
Village Bidkichyawas, Police Station Mangaliyavas, Ajmer.
3. Pukhraj S/o Kanhaiya Lal @ Kanha, By Caste Gurjar,
Minor Through Her Mother And Natural Guardian Ra, R/o
Village Bidkichyawas, Police Station Mangaliyavas, Ajmer.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Sanwarmal Gurjar S/o Shivji, By Caste Gurjar, R/o Village
Bidkichyawas, Police Station Mangaliyavas, Ajmer. Driver
2. Baldev Gurjar S/o Sukhdev, By Caste Gurjar, R/o Village
Bidkichyawas, Police Station Mangaliyavas, Ajmer. Owner
3. Royal Sundrem Alliance Insurance Company Limited,
Having Its Regional Office At 6Th Floor, Trimoorti, V.jay
City Point, Ahinsa Cirlce, Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
Through Its Regional Manager.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C. S. Jodha
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Order
05/10/2023
1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants -
claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
against the judgment and award dated 15.04.2013 passed by
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No.337/2012, whereby the
[2023:RJ-JP:27215] (2 of 6) [CMA-2875/2013]
learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,09,780/- to the
appellants-claimants (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimants').
2. The claimants submitted a claim petition claiming
compensation of Rs.47,00,000/-. On the basis of pleadings of the
parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues and evaluated the
evidence on record. After hearing learned counsel for the parties,
decided the claim petition of the claimants and passed the
impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the
learned Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned judgment and
award. Learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased only
Rs.3510/- per month, whereas the deceased was providing the
services of tuition and used to earn Rs.6000/- per month.
4. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Tribunal
has also erred in not awarding future prospects, as the deceased
was 18 years of age at time of accident and he was self employed
and, therefore, the claimants are entitled for 40% future
prospects.
5. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Tribunal
has erred in awarding interest @ 6% per annum. It is settled law
that interest on the compensation amount ought to have been
awarded at least @ 12% per annum.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent -
Insurance Company has supported the impugned judgment and
award and contended that there is no merit in this appeal and the
same be dismissed.
[2023:RJ-JP:27215] (3 of 6) [CMA-2875/2013]
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
8. Learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment has observed
that no evidence has been produced to prove that the deceased,
by doing the work of tuition was earning Rs.6000/- per month at
the time of accident. Therefore, learned Tribunal assessed the
monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3510. The date of
occurrence is 27.04.2012. In the year of 2012, minimum wages of
unskilled labour was Rs.147 per day.
9. In the opinion of this Court, if the income of the deceased,
as alleged in the claim petition was not proved by the claimants,
then in order to calculate the loss of income, the learned Tribunal
should have considered the income of the deceased to be
equivalent to the daily wages as applicable on the date of incident.
As per the claimants, profession of the deceased at the time of
accident, was tuition work. Therefore, the deceased should have
been treated to be a skilled labour. At the time of accident
minimum wages of unskilled labour was Rs.155 per day, therefore,
monthly income of the deceased comes to be Rs.155X30 =
Rs.4650/-.
10. Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the
head of future prospects. Age of the deceased was 18 years on
the date of accident, therefore, increment of 40% to the future
prospects, as per the direction given in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 is also to be made. Thus, total
[2023:RJ-JP:27215] (4 of 6) [CMA-2875/2013]
monthly income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.4650
(155 X 30) + 40% (Rs.1860/-) future prospects = Rs.6510/- per
month for the purpose of calculating the loss of income.
11. As the deceased was unmarried, therefore, learned Tribunal
has rightly deducted 50% amount of the total income under the
head of personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the net income
of the deceased comes to Rs.6510 divided by 2 = Rs.3255 and
total Rs.6510 - 3255= Rs.3255/- per month.
12. In this case, the age of the deceased is found to be 18 years.
Therefore, as per judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) the multiplier
of 18 is applicable in this case. Now, as discussed above, when
applying the multiplier of 18, total amount quantified as the loss
of income comes out to be Rs.3255 x 12 x 18 = Rs.7,03,080/-.
13. Learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-
each to the parents of the deceased under the head of 'filial'
consortium. Learned Tribunal has also awarded Rs.10,000/- to
brother of the deceased under the head of loss of love and
affection but as per the settled law, brother and sister of the
deceased are not entitled for any loss of love and affection.
Therefore, the appellant-claimant No.3 - Pukhraj (brother of the
deceased) is not entitled for the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,000/-.
As per the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @
Satvinder Kaur & Anr. reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 and
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru
Ram & Ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, parents of the
[2023:RJ-JP:27215] (5 of 6) [CMA-2875/2013]
deceased are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each under the head of
filial consortium.
14. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for
funeral expenses, which needs to be granted Rs.15,000/-. Further,
Rs.15,000/- is also required to be granted under the head of loss
of estate.
15. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the
extent as under:
1. Loss of Annual Income (as Rs.3255 x 12 x 18 =
per the age of the Rs.7,03,080/-
deceased, multiplier of 18).
2. Under the head of Filial Rs.40,000/- each to the
Consortium appellants
Total Rs.80,000/-
3. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
5. Total amount of Rs.8,13,080/-
compensation
6. Less amount awarded by Rs.3,09,780/-
the Tribunal
7. Enhanced amount of (Rs.8,13,080-
compensation Rs.3,09,780=
Rs.5,03,300/-
16. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award
dated 15.04.2013 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the
aforesaid extent. The claimants-appellants are entitled to get a
sum of Rs.8,13,080/- as compensation. Insurance Company is
directed to deposit enhanced amount of compensation with the
Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. After deposition of the said amount,
the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same in terms of
[2023:RJ-JP:27215] (6 of 6) [CMA-2875/2013]
the award. The enhanced amount shall carry 8% interest from the
date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made.
17. The other terms and conditions of the impugned judgment
and award shall remain the same.
18. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.
19. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J
A. ARORA /-118
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
