Rajasthan High Court

Prem And Ors vs Islam And Ors (2023:Rj-Jp:28523) on 11 October, 2023

Bench: Ashutosh Kumar

[2023:RJ-JP:28523]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1816/2011

1.       Prem Widow Of Harna @ Harnarayan, aged about 42

         years,
2.       Rohitash S/o Shri Harnarayan, aged about 24 years,

3.       Indubala D/o Shri Harnarayan, aged about 20 years,

4.       Satish S/o Harnarayan, aged about 17 years,

5.       Prakash S/o Shri Harnarayan, aged about 14 years,

         All are R/o Joja Ka Tehsil, Tijara District Alwar

                                                     ----Appellants/Claimants

                                    Versus

1.       Islam S/o Shri Raj Khan R/o Hasanpuri Mafi, Tehsil Tijara
         District Alwar
         (Driver Of Vehicle)
2.       Krishan Kumar S/o Shri Ramswaroop, R/o Rajaji Ka Bas,
         Behind Police Line, Alwar
         (Registered Owner Of The Vehicle)
3.       Hitesh Kumar S/o Siyaram, Diwanbadi Mohalla, Tijara
         District Alwar
         (Purchaser Of The Vehicle Through Agreement)
4.       United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
         Manager, Church Road, Alwar District Alwar
         (Insurer Of The Vehicle)

                                            ---Non Claimants/Respondents

5. Mst. Poori Widow Of Neta Ram, R/o Village Joja Ka, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar

----Proforma Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jai Raj Tantia

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain (for respondent-

Insurance Company)

[2023:RJ-JP:28523] (2 of 7) [CMA-1816/2011]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Order

11/10/2023

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the

judgment and award dated 25.05.2006 passed by Judge, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal & Additional District and Sessions Judge,

No.1 Kishangarh, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the

'Tribunal') in MAC Case No.156/2004, whereby the learned

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,72,000/- to the claimants-

appellants.

2. The claimants-appellants filed the claim petition claiming

compensation of Rs.37,22,000/-. 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,

learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition, awarded the

aforesaid amount as compensation in favour of the claimants-

appellants.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated

25.05.2006, the claimants-appellants filed this miscellaneous

appeal for suitable enhancement of the amount awarded as

compensation by learned Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of this case are that on 23.10.2004, one

Harnarayan (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was

travelling to his village when, driver of the vehicle bearing

registration No. RJ-02-G-7439 drove it in a rash and negligent

[2023:RJ-JP:28523] (3 of 7) [CMA-1816/2011]

manner due to which Harnarayan got hit by the vehicle. The

deceased was admitted in the hospital, where during the medical

treatment he subsequently died.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contended that

the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and

award, has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as

Rs.3,000/- on the date of accident.

6. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Tribunal

has erred in not awarding any amount under the head of future

prospects, as the deceased was 45 years of age at time of

accident and, therefore, the claimants-appellants are entitled for

future prospects.

7. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that

there are 6 dependents on the deceased, however learned

Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd amount under the head of

personal expenses and therefore, the appeal may be allowed and

the impugned judgment and award may be suitably enhanced in

favour of the claimants-appellants.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent -

Insurance Company submitted that learned Tribunal while

assessing the monthly income of the deceased, has wrongly

applied multiplier of 15. Learned counsel further submitted that

monthly income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.100/-

per day, whereas, on the date of accident minimum daily wages of

an unskilled labour were Rs.73/- per day and therefore, the

monthly income of the deceased should have been assessed as

[2023:RJ-JP:28523] (4 of 7) [CMA-1816/2011]

Rs.2,190/-, hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the same

be dismissed.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

10. Learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment has observed

that no evidence was produced to prove that the deceased, was

working as a security guard and agricultural labour used to earn

Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of accident.

11. Accordingly, learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly

income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. This Court does not find

any legal ground to interfere with this finding of learned Tribunal

and hence, monthly income of the deceased comes out to be

Rs.3,000/-.

12. Admittedly, learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to

the claimants-appellants under the head of future prospects. This

Court finds that the deceased was 45 years of age at time of

accident and was self employed also. Therefore, increment of

25% as to the future prospects, as per the direction given by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017)

16 SCC 680 is to be made. Thus, total monthly income of the

deceased comes out to be Rs.3,000/- + 25% (Rs.750/-) future

prospects = Rs.3,750/- per month.

13. It is an admitted fact that the deceased is survived by his

wife and children. Mother of the deceased was appellant in the

claim petition filed before learned Tribunal, however, she has not

[2023:RJ-JP:28523] (5 of 7) [CMA-1816/2011]

filed any appeal challenging the impugned judgment and award.

In the present appeal for this reason, she has been made

proforma respondent. Therefore, there were five dependents on

the deceased and 1/4th part of the income of the deceased should

be deducted under the head of personal expenses. After such

deduction, the net income of the deceased comes out to be

Rs.3,750/- divided by 4 = Rs.938/- and total Rs.3,750/- -

Rs.938/- = Rs.2,812/- per month.

14. The age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of

accident, thus as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) the

multiplier of 14 is applicable in this case. Now, applying the

multiplier of 14, total amount quantified as loss of dependency

comes out to be Rs.2,812/- X 12 X 14 = Rs.4,72,416/-.

15. Learned Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of

Rs.10,000/- under the head of consortium to the claimants-

appellants. As per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), 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, the appellant No.1-wife of

the deceased is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- under the head of

spousal consortium, appellant Nos.2 to 5, who are children of the

deceased are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each under the head of

parental consortium.

[2023:RJ-JP:28523] (6 of 7) [CMA-1816/2011]

16. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- for

funeral expenses, however, as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi

(supra), it needs to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-.

17. Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the

head of loss of estate whereas, according to the judgment of

Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/- is required to be granted

under the head of loss of estate.

18. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the

extent as under:



  1.    Loss of Annual Income (as per                     Rs.2,812/- X 12 X 14 =
        the   age     of   the deceased,                       Rs.4,72,416/-
        multiplier of 14).
  2.    Under the head of Spousal                              Rs.40,000/-
        Consortium, Parental Consortium                   (each to the appellants)
        and Filial Consortium                              = Total Rs.2,00,000/-
  3.    Funeral expenses                                             Rs.15,000/-
  4.    Loss of estate                                               Rs.15,000/-
  5.    Total amount of compensation                            Rs.7,02,416/-
  6.    Less amount        awarded        by    the              Rs.3,72,000/-
        Tribunal
  7.    Enhanced             amount                 of        (Rs.7,02,416/- -
        compensation                                          Rs.3,72,000/-) =
                                                               Rs.3,30,416/-

18. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award

dated 25.05.2006 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the

aforesaid extent. The claimants-appellants are entitled to get a

sum of Rs.7,02,416/- 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:28523] (7 of 7) [CMA-1816/2011]

the award. The enhanced amount shall carry 8% interest from the

date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made.

19. The other terms and conditions of the impugned judgment