Rajasthan High Court
Nand Kishore And Others vs Raj Kumar And Others on 15 March, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:12887]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1760/2015
1. Nandkishore S/o Jeetmal, aged about 43 years,
2. Chema W/o Nandkishore, aged about 41 years,
3. Priyanka D/o Nandkishore, aged about 19 years,
4. Manisha D/o Nandkishore, aged about 17 years,
5. Hitesh S/o Nandkishore, aged about 15 years,
Appellant Nos.4 and 5 being minor through their natural
guardian and Father i.e. Mankishore
all R/o Rajvaas, P.S. Gendoli, Distt. Bundi (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Raj Kumar @ Raju S/o Shivsingh Rajpoot, R/o Morvan, Teh.
Javad, P.S. Javad, Distt. Neemach, Madhya Pradesh.
2. Mehmood S/o Ahmad, R/o Guljarbagh, Talab Ki Pal, Ward
No.21, P.S. Kotwali, Teh. And Distt. Tonk
3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch office 3 rd Floor,
A-13-37 Hanuman Nagar, Khatipura Tiraha, Sirsi Road, Jaipur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Khandelwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 15/03/2024
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
dated 06.02.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Tonk (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.168/2014,
whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,64,400/- as
compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date
[2024:RJ-JP:12887] (2 of 4) [CMA-1760/2015]
of filing the claim petition as compensation in favour of the
claimants.
Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal
had erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3500/-
per month. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that
deceased was earning much more than Rs.3500/- per month,
therefore, at least minimum wages should be taken into
consideration for assessing the income of the deceased. Learned
counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal has erred
in awarding 30% amount towards future prospects. As per the age
of the deceased i.e. between 21 to 25 years, claimants are
entitled to get 40% amount towards future prospects. Learned
counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal had
awarded only Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and love
and affection, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- for each claimant.
Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal
had not awarded any amount towards loss of estate. So, claimants
are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. So,
judgment and award of the Tribunal be modified.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and
submitted that claimants failed to submit the evidence regarding
income of the deceased. So, the Tribunal rightly considered the
income of the deceased as Rs.3500/- per month and rightly
granted 30% amount towards future prospects. So, present
appeal be dismissed.
[2024:RJ-JP:12887] (3 of 4) [CMA-1760/2015]
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the
Insurance Company.
The Tribunal had erred in assessing the income of the
deceased as Rs.3500/- per month. At the time of accident,
prevailing minimum wages were Rs.166/- per day. So, income of
the deceased be calculated on the basis of minimum wages of
Rs.166/- per day. The Tribunal had also committed error in
granting 30% amount towards future prospects, whereas since the
age of the deceased was between 21 to 25 years, it should be
40%. The Tribunal had also awarded a very meager amount of
Rs.50,000/- lumpsum towards loss of consortium and love and
affection, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- for each claimant. The
Tribunal had also committed error in not granting the amount
towards loss of estate. So, claimants are entitled to get
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. So, the judgment of the
Tribunal is modified to the extent as under:-
Monthly income Rs.166/- X 30 =4980/-
Annual Income Rs.4980 X 12 = 59,760/-
According to the age of the Rs.59,760/- X 18 = 10,75,680/-
deceased between 21 to 25
years, Multiplier 18 to be
applied
Since, the deceased was Rs.10,75,680/- X 1/2 =
unmarried boy, 1/2 of the 5,37,840/-
income to be deducted for
personal expenses(-)
Future Prospects Rs.5,37,840/- X 40% =
2,15,136/-
Loss of consortium and love and Rs.2,00,000/-
affection to claimants
(40,000 X 5)
[2024:RJ-JP:12887] (4 of 4) [CMA-1760/2015]
Funeral expenses (+)
Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Estate
Rs.15,000/-
Amount of Transportation as
awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,000/-
Litigation Expenses
Rs.5,000/-
Total
Rs.9,90,976/-
Less amount awarded by the
Tribunal Rs.5,64,400/-
Enhanced Amount of
compensation Rs.9,90,976/- - Rs.5,64,400/-
= Rs.4,26,576/-
The claimants are entitled to get a further sum of
Rs.4,26,576/- as compensation. The Insurance Company is
directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.4,26,576/-
(Rs.9,90,976/- - Rs.5,64,400/-) 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
@ 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition
till the actual payment is made.
In the result, 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 /253
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
