Rajasthan High Court
Shiyana Devi And Anr vs Surendra Kumar And Anr ... on 7 October, 2023
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar
[2023:RJ-JP:27767]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 576/2017
1. Shiyana Devi W/o Ranjeet Singh, Village Harwasa, Teh.
Fatehpur, Distt. Sikar
2. Ranjeet Singh S/o Ramdeva Ram, Village Harwasa, Teh.
Fatehpur, Distt. Sikar
----Appellants
Versus
1. Surendra Kumar S/o Lekhram Bhamu, Govindpura, Teh.
Fatehpur, Distt. Sikar Driver And Owner Bolero Jeep No.
Rj-23-Ua-6081
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Division Office At
Bajaj Road, Sikar Having Its Regional Office At Anand
Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur Through Its
Regional Manager Insurance Company Bolero Jeep No. Rj-
23-Ua-6081
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Vinay Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Ms.Archana Mantri
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Order
07/10/2023
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants -
claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
against the judgment dated 29.11.2016 (hereafter referred to as
"the impugned judgment") passed by Additional District &
Sessions Judge & Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehpur
(hereinafter referred to as the "the Tribunal") in MAC Case
No.29/2016 (253/2014) titled as Smt. Shiyana Devi & Anr. Vs.
Surendra Kumar & Anr.
[2023:RJ-JP:27767] (2 of 6) [CMA-576/2017]
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Vijendra Singh
(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") died in a road accident
on 26.01.2014.
3. The parents of the deceased filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal to claim compensation of Rs.2,33,51,000/-, due to death
of the deceased.
4. Learned Tribunal, vide the impugned judgment, has awarded
compensation of Rs.4,38,100/- to the appellants-claimants.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant-claimants has filed
the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that
the deceased was a young boy, at the age of 29 years. The
deceased was a Driver by profession and was earning Rs.48,000/-
per month by doing work of driving in Saudi Arabia.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants further
submitted that as the appellants-claimants failed to produce any
evidence to prove income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal
has assessed monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4,050/-,
which is lesser income of a driver, even if it is assessed on the
basis of minimum wages on the date of death of the deceased.
Therefore, income of the deceased may be suitably enhanced.
7. Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has failed to add 40% amount under the head of future
prospects.
[2023:RJ-JP:27767] (3 of 6) [CMA-576/2017]
8. Learned counsel has also submitted that the learned Tribunal
has not awarded any amount under the head of consortium,
therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the compensation may
be suitably enhanced.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance
Company has supported the impugned judgment and award and
contended that there is no force in the appeal, hence, the same
may be dismissed.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
11. On a bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it is revealed
that in absence of the proof of income of the deceased, the
learned Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased to be
Rs.4,050/- per month. The deceased was a Driver by profession
on the date of accident, therefore, the deceased is to be
considered as skilled labour and his income is to be calculated on
the basis of minimum wages of a skilled labour, which was
prevalent on the date of accident.
12. This Court finds that on the date of accident, daily wages of
a driver was Rs.209/- per day, which comes to be
Rs.209x30=Rs.6,270/- per month.
13. This Court further finds that the learned Tribunal has not
added any amount under the head of future prospects to the
income of the deceased.
[2023:RJ-JP:27767] (4 of 6) [CMA-576/2017]
14. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017)16 SCC
680] has held that in case of self-employed person, the increment
of 40% as future prospects to be awarded, if age of the
deceased/injured is below 40 years and 30%, if the age of
deceased/injured is 40 to 50. Learned Tribunal has assessed age
of the deceased to be 29 years, therefore, 40% of the income of
of the deceased i.e. Rs.6,270/- is to be added in the monthly
income as per the directions given in the case of Pranay Sethi &
Ors. (supra). Thus, total monthly income of the deceased comes
out to be Rs.6,270 + 40% (Rs. 2,508/-) future prospects =
Rs.8,778/- per month.
15. Learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% amount under
the head of personal expenses of the deceased, as he was
unmarried at the time of accident. Thus, after deducting 50% of
the amount, the net income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.
4,389/- (Rs.8,778-50% of Rs.8,778).
16. This Court finds that the deceased was 29 years of age and
considering the age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has
applied multiplier of 17. Thus, finding of the learned Tribunal, in
this regard, does not warrant any interference by this Court.
17. Now, as discussed above, applying the multiplier of 17, total
amount quantified as the loss of dependency comes out to be
Rs.4,389 x 12 x 17 = Rs.8,95,356/-.
18. This Court further finds that the learned Tribunal has not
awarded any amount under the head of 'filial' consortium.
[2023:RJ-JP:27767] (5 of 6) [CMA-576/2017]
19. 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] has held that parents of the
deceased are entitled for 'filial' consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each.
Accordingly, this Court awards Rs.40,000/- each to parents of the
deceased under the head of 'filial' consortium.
20. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- under the head of
funeral expenses, however, as per the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra), the appellants-
claimants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- under the head of
funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of
estate.
21. Accordingly, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified
to the extent as under:
1. Loss of Annual Income (as Rs.4,389 x 12 x 17 =
per the age of the Rs.8,95,356/-
deceased, multiplier of 17).
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.10,05,356/-
compensation
6. Less amount awarded by Rs.4,38,100/-
the Tribunal
7. Enhanced amount of (Rs.10,05,356-
compensation Rs.4,38,100=
Rs.5,67,256/-
[2023:RJ-JP:27767] (6 of 6) [CMA-576/2017]
22. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award
dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the
aforesaid extent. The claimants-appellants are entitled to get a
sum of Rs.10,05,356/- as compensation. The 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
the award. The enhanced amount shall carry 8% interest from the
date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made.
23. The other terms and conditions of the impugned judgment
and award shall remain the same.
24. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.
25. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J
Preeti Asopa /55
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
