Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shahnaj And Ors vs Surpal Singh S Raol And Ors ... on 9 October, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:41400]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 838/2006
1.Smt. Shahnaj, Widow Of Late Ahsan Ali @ Ehsan Mohd.,
2.Ms. Heena Kausar, Daughter Of Late Ahsan Ali @ Ehsan
3.Mohd Vasim, Son Of Late Ahsan Ali @ Ehsan Mohd.
4.Mohd. Noman Son Of Late Ahsan Ali @ Ehsan Mohd.
5.Jainab, Wife Of Abbas Ali Alias Arbas Mohd., Resident Of Penko
Ka Bas, Jodhpur.
Appellants (Claimants)
1. Surpal Singh S. Raol, Resident Of 3A, Maitri Society, Post
Adipur, District Kuchh Bhuj Gujarat. - Truck Owner
2. Raimal Dhanna Patel, C/o Jalla Ram Transport Company,
Gandhi Dhan, District Kuchh Bhuj Gujarat. - Truck Driver
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office
Residency Road, Jodhpur. - Truck Insurer
4. Santosh Kumar Vyas, Son Of Shri Kamla Prasad, Resident
Of 19/574, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur. - Owner Car
Taxi
5. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Bhati N. Plaza, Pal
Road Jodhpur. - Insurer Car Taxi
Respondents--
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Bhandari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. TRS Sodha for respondent No.3
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
09/10/2024
1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the
claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 ('the Act of 1988') challenging the validity of
judgment/award dated 21.02.2006 passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No.4, Jodhpur,
[2024:RJ-JD:41400] (2 of 5) [CMA-838/2006]
in MAC Case No.28/2005 whereby claim petition of the claimants
was allowed and were awarded an amount of compensation to the
tune of Rs.4,24,400/- in total with the interest @ 7.5% p.a, while
fastening the liability upon respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.12.2003, deceased
Ahsan Ali @ Ehsan Mohd was driving a taxi and two passenger
were sitting in his taxi, suddenly the vehicle Truck bearing
Registration No.GJ 1 AT 1988 coming in a rash and negligent
manner, hit the taxi resulting into death of Ahsan Ali @ Ehsan
Mohd. A claim petition was preferred on behalf of the appellant
which was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge
(Fast Track) No.4, Jodhpur.
3. Thereafter, learned Tribunal issued notices to the non-
claimants. Despite service, respondent Nos.1 and 2 ex-parte
proceedings initiated against them. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed
reply and denied all the averments made in the petition. As per
the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed issues. Thereafter,
claimants in support of their claim petition, examined 6 witnesses
and exhibited several documents to prove their case whereas one
witness(es) was examined or led in defense.
4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed
the claim petition of the claimants and being dissatisfied of the
award, the claimants have preferred the claim petition.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that
the learned Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the
deceased as Rs.3000/- per month when the salary certificate
exhibit-4 produced by the appellant-claimant clearly stipulates the
salary of the deceased to be Rs.5000/- per month. He also
[2024:RJ-JD:41400] (3 of 5) [CMA-838/2006]
submits that the employer of the deceased (DW-1) has also
deposed that deceased worked as a driver with him for a period of
ten years and used to earn Rs.5000/- per month. He further
submits that due to untimely of death of deceased Ahsan Ali @
Ehsan Mohd. family members had suffered mental loss and pain
but the learned Tribunal failed to take the same into consideration
and has awarded a meager amount towards consortium. He
further submits that the claim awarded by the learned Tribunal
under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses is also
required to be modified. Learned counsel for the appellant further
submits that looking to the age of the deceased, future prospect
deserves to be 40% but the learned Tribunal has erred in not
awarding any amount under the Head of Future Prospects without
there being any reason therefore, the loss of dependency was not
correctly considered.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company
vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the appellants'
counsel but, he is not in position to dispute the same.
7. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
Bar and have gone through the impugned award.
8. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has erred in
assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month
when the appellant-claimants had produced a salary certificate
stating the income of the deceased, coupled with the fact that the
employer of the deceased (DW-1) himself deposed that he had
employed the deceased as a driver for a period of ten years and
that he was earning Rs.5000/- per month from his job. Thus, this
Court deems it fit to calculate the loss of income of the deceased
[2024:RJ-JD:41400] (4 of 5) [CMA-838/2006]
while taking Rs.5000/- as his monthly salary. This Court also finds
that the compensation awarded under heads viz. consortium
deserves to be modified. The claimants are thus held entitled to
get compensation under the head of consortium @ Rs.48,400/- for
each claimant and the claim awarded by the learned Tribunal
under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses is also
modified to Rs.18,150/- each. This Court also finds that future
prospects deserve to be 40%. This Court is also of the view that
looking into the age of the deceased, multiplier of 15 ought to
have been taken instead of 16 and therefore, this Court deems it
fit to calculate the loss of income while taking a multiplier of 15,
however it is pertinent to mention here that since it is an appeal
filed by the claimants, this Court has reduced the multiplier only
on the ground that the entire compensation so awarded to the
claimants is not reduced, even after calculating the loss of income
by taking a lower multiplier. After arriving at a conclusion that the
award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified,
both the counsel were directed to jointly submit the calculation of
the compensation awardable to the claimants afresh in light of the
guidelines laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, The
award is modified in the following manner:-
Particulars Awarded by Amount
Tribunal
Monthly Income of the Rs.3000/- Rs.5000/-
deceased
(Add) 40% Future Prospects Rs.7000/-
[2024:RJ-JD:41400] (5 of 5) [CMA-838/2006]
Rs.5000x 40% i.e. 2000
(5000+2000)
(Less) deduction 1/4th i.e. Rs.2250/- Rs.5250/-
Rs.7000/- x 1/4th =1750
(7000-1750)
Rs.5250 x12x 15 (multiplier) Rs.3,84,000/- Rs.9,45,000/-
(Add) Rs.18,150/- towards Rs.5000/- Rs.36,300/-
funeral expenses and (Funeral
Rs.18,150/- towards loss of expenses)
estate
(Add) Rs.48,400/- towards loss Rs.30,000/- Rs.2,42,000/-
of consortium x 5
(dependents)
Transportation Rs.5400/- Rs.5400/-
TOTAL Rs.12,28,700/
AWARDED BY TRIBUNAL Rs.4,24,400/-
ENHANCED AMOUNT Rs.8,04,300/-
9. Accordingly, the instant misc. appeal is allowed and the
amount of compensation payable to the claimants is further
enhanced by Rs.8,04,300/- in the terms stated above. The
enhanced amount shall carry the same interest as awarded by the
learned Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition till the
date of deposit. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the
respondents Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally with the Tribunal
within a period of two months from today.
10. Record be sent back forthwith. No order as to costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
surabhii/50-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
