Rajasthan High Court
Sajna Devi And Ors vs Om Prakash Saini And Ors on 4 March, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:10786]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2747/2018
1. Sajna Devi W/o Late Sh. Rameshwar Prasad, aged 38 years,
2. Pintu Devi Haritwal D/o Sh. Rameshwar Prasad, aged 21
years,
3. Surajbhan Haritwal S/o Sh. Rameshwar Prasad, aged 19
years,
4. Chandrabhan Haritwal S/o Sh. Rameshwar Prasad, aged 17
years,
Minor appellant No.4 through his guardian mother Sajan Devi
5. Jadi Devi D/o Late Sh. Nathuram, aged 64 years,
R/o Hanutpura, Khoraladkhani, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Om Prakash Saini Son of Sh. Ghasiram Saini, R/o D.D. 159,
Vishvakarma Colony, P.N.T. behind Quarter Shastri Nagar, Jaipur
District Jaipur Rajasthan (Vehicle of Driver Mini Bus No.RJ14-
P.B.0591)
2. Kiran Singh Choudhary Son of Sh. Birdaram, R/o 81, Chopra
Garedo Ki Dhani, Biharipura Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur
Rajasthan (Vehicle of Owner Mini Bus No.RJ14-P.B.0591)
3. United India Insurance Company Limited through Authorized
Officer of the office of Digamber Jain Dharamshala MI Road
Jaipour District Jaipur Rajasthan (Hall Insurance Company
Vehicle Mini Bus No.RJ14-P.B.0591 valid from 14.02.2014 to
13.02.2015 Insurance Policy NO. 1403003113 P 107559806)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Bhargava, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 04/03/2024
The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimants-appellants (for
[2024:RJ-JP:10786] (2 of 4) [CMA-2747/2018]
short 'the claimants') dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 15.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Shahpura, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case
No.187/2014 (NCV No.1432/2014), whereby the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.13,23,790/- along with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. w.e.f.
05.11.2014 as compensation in favour of the claimants and the
amended order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Tribunal, whereby
the Tribunal modified the amount of compensation and awarded
Rs.10,91,572/- instead of Rs.13,23,790/-.
Learned counsel for the claimants submits the Tribunal
wrongly considered the income of deceased as Rs. 189/- per day.
Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the
deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by driving as also
agriculture and animal husbandry work. Learned counsel for the
claimants also submits that the claimants had submitted the
jamabandi (Ex.13) in relation to the agriculture land in the name
of the deceased. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits
that the Tribunal wrongly calculated the income of the deceased
for 26 days whereas it should be 30 days. Learned counsel for the
claimants also submits that the Tribunal wrongly awarded Rs.
40,000/- towards loss of consortium, 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
submits that the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the
claimants failed to adduce cogent evidence that income of the
[2024:RJ-JP:10786] (3 of 4) [CMA-2747/2018]
deceased was Rs.15,000/- per month. So, the Tribunal rightly
calculated the income of the deceased as Rs. 189/- per day on the
basis of minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that the
Tribunal rightly awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs. 40,000/-
towards loss of consortium. 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 the claimants failed to adduce
cogent evidence that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per
month. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal rightly
calculated the income of the deceased as per minimum wages
prevalent at the relevant point of time i.e. Rs. 189/- per day but
the Tribunal calculated the income for 26 days, whereas it should
be 30 days. The Tribunal also awarded a lumpsum amount of
Rs.40,000/- only towards loss of consortium, whereas it should be
Rs. 40,000/- to each claimant. So, judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to the extent as under:-
Monthly income 189X30=Rs.5,670/-
Annual Income 5,670 X12= Rs.68,040/-
1/4 income to be deducted for 68,040 - 17,010=51,030/-
personal expenses of the
deceased(-)
According to the age of the 51,030X15= Rs.7,65,450/-
deceased i.e. 39 years at the
time of accident, multiplier 15
to be applied
Add 40% towards future 7,65,450+3,06,180= Rs.
prospects 10,71,630/-
Loss of Consortium to claimants Rs. 2,00,000/-
Nos. 1 (Rs. 40,000/-) and loss
[2024:RJ-JP:10786] (4 of 4) [CMA-2747/2018]
of Love and Affection to the
claimants Nos. 2 to 5 (40,000X
4 = Rs. 1,60,000/-)
Loss of Estate(+) Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expenses(+) Rs.15,000/-
Admission Charges in the Rs. 3,000/-
Hospital for 5 days @ Rs.600
per day, as awarded by the
Tribunal
Transportation charges as Rs.5,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal
Total Rs.13,09,630/-
Less amount awarded by the Rs.10,91,572/-
Tribunal
Enhanced Amount of Rs.13,09,630 - Rs.10,91,572 =
compensation Rs.2,18,058/-
In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to get a further
sum of Rs.2,18,058/- as compensation. The Insurance Company is
directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.2,18,058/-
(13,09,630 - 10,91,572) 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
withdrawn the same. The enhanced amount shall carry @ 9%
interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the
actual payment is made.
Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain
unchanged. Impugned judgment and award is modified
accordingly.
Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin/Tahir/188
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
