Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Sajida Banu W/O Late Shri Irshad ... vs Mahipal Vishnoi S/O Shri Baksa Vishnoi on 2 May, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:20570]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1480/2020
1. Smt. Sajida Banu W/o Late Shri Irshad Mohammad, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o Kuraishi Mohalla, Nagar Palika
Colony, Near Pani Ki Tanki, Amet, District Rajasmand
2. Kumari Parveen D/o Late Shri Irshad Mohammad, Aged
About 14 Years, Minor Through Their Mother Appellant
No. 1 Sajida Bano, R/o Kuraishi Mohalla, Nagar Palika
Colony, Near Pani Ki Tanki, Amet, District Rajasmand
3. Kumari Busra D/o Late Shri Irshad Mohammad, Aged
About 12 Years, Minor Through Their Mother Appellant
No. 1 Sajida Bano, R/o Kuraishi Mohalla, Nagar Palika
Colony, Near Pani Ki Tanki, Amet, District Rajasmand
4. Kumari Jajiya D/o Late Shri Irshad Mohammad, Aged
About 9 Years, Minor Through Their Mother Appellant No.
1 Sajida Bano, R/o Kuraishi Mohalla, Nagar Palika Colony,
Near Pani Ki Tanki, Amet, District Rajasmand
5. Master Irfan S/o Late Shri Irshad Mohammad, Aged
About 7 Years, Minor Through Their Mother Appellant No.
1 Sajida Bano, R/o Kuraishi Mohalla, Nagar Palika Colony,
Near Pani Ki Tanki, Amet, District Rajasmand
6. Master Jishan S/o Late Shri Irshad Mohammad, Aged
About 4 Years, Minor Through Their Mother Appellant No.
1 Sajida Bano, R/o Kuraishi Mohalla, Nagar Palika Colony,
Near Pani Ki Tanki, Amet, District Rajasmand
7. Smt. Taj Bano W/o Shri Sadiq Mohammad, Aged About 60
Years, R/o Kuraishi Mohalla, Nagar Palika Colony, Near
Pani Ki Tanki, Amet, District Rajasmand
----Appellants
Versus
1. Mahipal Vishnoi S/o Shri Baksa Vishnoi, R/o Chadi, Falodi,
District Jodhpur (Raj) (Driver Of The Bus No. Rj-22-Pa-
2224)
2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through
Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
(Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:26:09 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:20570] (2 of 5) [CMA-1480/2020]
Corporation Beawar Depot, Beawar District Ajmer, Having
Its Head Office At Parivahan Marg, Chomu House Circle,
Jaipur (Owner Of The Bus No. Rj-22-Pa-2224)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Singh, Adv. for
Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhilash Vishnu Bhardwaj, Adv.
for respondent No.2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 02/05/2024
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 03.10.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Additional District and Session Judge No. 3) Beawar (for short
'The Tribunal') in Case No.42/2019 (238/2018) (Smt. Sajida Banu
and Ors. Vs. Mahipal Vishnoi and Anr.) whereby the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,317/- along with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing the claim petition as compensation
in favour of the claimants.
Learned counsel for the claimants submits that Tribunal had
wrongly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.5,538/- per
month. The deceased was doing business of buying and selling of
goat's meat and earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month.
So, the income of the deceased be calculated as Rs.25,000/- per
month. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the
[2024:RJ-JP:20570] (3 of 5) [CMA-1480/2020]
Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased for 26
days only, whereas it should be for 30 days. Learned counsel for
the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has awarded very
meagre amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to
claimant No. 1, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- for each
claimant. So, the judgment and award of the Tribunal may be
modified accordingly.
Learned counsel for the RSRTC has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submits that
the claimants failed to adduce any cogent evidence that deceased
was earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. So, the
Tribunal had rightly assessed the income of the deceased as
Rs.5,538/- per month. So, the present appeal being devoid of
merit, is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the
RSRTC.
It is an admitted position that the claimants failed to adduce
any cogent evidence that deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- to
Rs.25,000/- per month. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal
has rightly calculated the income of the deceased on the basis of
minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time i.e.,
Rs.213/- per day but the Tribunal has wrongly considered the
income of the deceased for 26 days only, whereas it should be for
30 days. The Tribunal has awarded a very meager amount of
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas it should be
[2024:RJ-JP:20570] (4 of 5) [CMA-1480/2020]
Rs.40,000/- for each claimant. So, the judgment of the Tribunal is
modified to the extent as under:-
Monthly Income 213X30=Rs.6390/-
Annual Income 6390X12=Rs.76,680/-
According to the age of the 76,680X14=Rs. 10,73,520/-
deceased i.e. 42 years,
multiplier 14 to be applied
Since the deceased had 7 10,73,520-2,14,704=
dependents, 1/5 income to be Rs.8,58,816/-
deducted for personal
expenses of the deceased(-)
Add 25% towards future 8,58,816+25%=
prospects (+) Rs.10,73,520/-
Loss of Consortium and Love Rs. 2,80,000/-
& Affection (40,000 X 7)
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.13,83,520/-
Less Awarded Amount Rs.10,00,317/-
Enhanced Amount Rs. 13,83,520 - Rs. 10,00,317 =
Rs.3,83,203/-
The claimants are entitled to get a further sum of
Rs.3,83,203/- as compensation. RSRTC is directed to deposit
enhanced amount of Rs.3,83,203/-(Rs.13,83,520 -
Rs.10,00,317/-) 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 7.5%
interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual
payment is made.
Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.
[2024:RJ-JP:20570] (5 of 5) [CMA-1480/2020]
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
Tahir/152
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
