Rajasthan High Court
Madan Lal Rawat S/O Late Shri Jagdish ... vs Ramprasad S/O Shri Dayaram on 2 April, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:15163]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5680/2018
1. Madan Lal Rawat S/o Late Shri Jagdish Narayan Rawat,
Aged About 69 Years, 8/110, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Behind
Gyan Jyoti Senior Secondary School, Jaipur.
2. Manoj Kumar Rawat S/o Shri Madan Lal Rawat, Aged
About 44 Years, 8/110, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Behind Gyan
Jyoti Senior Secondary School, Jaipur.
3. Rakesh Kumar Rawat S/o Shri Madan Lal Rawat, Aged
About 38 Years, 8/110, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Behind Gyan
Jyoti Senior Secondary School, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Ramprasad S/o Shri Dayaram, R/o- Toda Raisingh, Tehsil
Toda Raisingh, Distt- Tonk (Driver Bolero No.- Rj 26-Ua-
1866)
2. Jagdish Jat S/o Shri Ram Jeevan Jat, R/o Bherupura,
Post- Lambakalan, Tehsil- Todaraisingh, Distt.- Tonk.
(Owner Bolero No.- Rj 26-Ua-1866).
3. New India Insurance Company Limited Through Regional
Manager, Regional Office, Nehru Palace Tonk Road, Jaipur.
Cover Note No. 195294 Valid Up To 30-4-14 To 29-4-15.
(Insurance Company Bolero No.- Rj 26-Ua-1866).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. K. N. Tiwari, Adv. for claimants
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, Adv. for
Insurance Company
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 02/04/2024
The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimants-appellants (for
short 'the claimants') dissatisfied with the judgment and award
[2024:RJ-JP:15163] (2 of 4) [CMA-5680/2018]
dated 15.09.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in
M.A.C.T. Case No.1058/2014, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs.4,90,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7%
per annum from the date of filing the claim petition in favour of
the claimants.
Learned counsel for the claimants submits that deceased-
Geeta Devi was doing business of Readymade Garments. She was
proprietor of Rawat Marketing and her income was Rs.3,35,980/-
per annum. Claimants had proved her income by filing Income Tax
Returns but the Tribunal had committed an error in assessing the
income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month and also
wrongly deducted 1/2 amount towards personal expenses of the
deceased. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that
income of the deceased be calculated as Rs.3,35,980/- per
annum. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the
Tribunal committed an error in awarding lump sum amount of
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and love and affection,
whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- for each claimant. So, judgment
and award of the Tribunal be modified accordingly.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and
submitted that after death of Geeta Devi, firm Rawat Marketing
was running and her son was doing business. So, there was no
loss of income. So, the Tribunal rightly calculated the income of
the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. He further submitted that
claimant Nos.2 and 3 were not considered as dependent of the
deceased for the reason that they were doing their separate
[2024:RJ-JP:15163] (3 of 4) [CMA-5680/2018]
business. So, the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/2 amount towards
personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal rightly awarded
lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and
love and affection. So, appeal be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the
Insurance Company.
It is an admitted position that deceased was proprietor of
firm Rawat Marketing. After death of Geeta Devi, firm Rawat
Marketing was running and her son was doing business. So, in my
considered opinion, no loss of income was caused to the firm. So,
the Tribunal rightly calculated the income of the deceased as
Rs.10,000/- per month. Since, claimant Nos.2 and 3 were major
and doing business separately, so, they were not considered as
dependent of the deceased. So, the Tribunal rightly deducted the
1/2 amount towards personal expenses of the deceased but the
Tribunal committed an error in awarding lump sum amount of
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and love and affection,
whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- for each claimant. So, the
judgment of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under:-
Annual Income Rs.10,000 X 12 =1,20,000/-
According to the age of the Rs.1,20,000 X 7= Rs.8,40,000/-
deceased i.e. 62 years,
Multiplier of 7 shall be applied
Since, the claimant Nos.2 and 3 Rs.8,40,000 X 1/2= 4,20,000/-
were major and were doing
their separate business,
therefore, they were not
considered as dependent of the
deceased. Thus, 1/2 is to be
deducted for personal expenses
of the deceased
[2024:RJ-JP:15163] (4 of 4) [CMA-5680/2018]
Loss of Consortium and Love
and Affection Rs.1,20,000/-
(40,000 X 3)
Loss of Estate
Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expenses
Rs.15,000/-
Total
Rs.5,70,000/-
Less amount awarded by the
Tribunal Rs.4,90,000/-
Enhanced Amount of
compensation Rs.5,70,000 - Rs.4,90,000 =
Rs.80,000/-
The claimants are entitled to get a further sum of
Rs.80,000/- as compensation. The Insurance Company is directed
to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.5,70,000 -
Rs.4,90,000/-) with the Tribunal within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On
deposition of the said amount, the claimants shall be entitled to
withdraw the same. The enhanced amount shall carry @ 7%
interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the
actual payment is made.
In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly
allowed.
Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain
unchanged. Impugned judgment and award is modified
accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /101
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
