Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Budha Ram And Anr vs Mohd.Sharif And Anr. ... on 15 October, 2024

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2024:RJ-JD:42022]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1441/2013

1.     Mr. Budha Ram S/o Sukhdev aged 40 years
2.     Mrs. Meera w/o Mr. Budha Ram aged 38 years
Both     residents   of   Guda       Bishnoiya,        Tehsil    Luni,   Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.


                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1. Mr. Mohd.sharif S/o Mr. Khudabaksh, Resident of Luniyanpura,
Abu Road, Sirohi, Rajasthan.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office,
Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302015 Branch Office, Old
Check Post Abu Road- 307026 District Sirohi (Raj.)
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. R.K. Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. N.K. Joshi. R-2



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Judgment

15/10/2024

1. The instant misc. appeal, seeking enhancement, has been

preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter as 'the Act') against the

judgment and award dated 30.04.2013 (hereinafter as 'the

impugned award') passed by MACT (I), Jodhpur (hereinafter as

'the learned tribunal') in MAC Case no. 616/2010 (filed under

Section 166 of the Act), whereby the learned tribunal has awarded

Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest @8.5% (from the date of filing

of the claim petition i.e., 31.07.2010) to the appellants/claimants

and held the respondents/non-claimants jointly and severally

liable to pay the said compensation.

[2024:RJ-JD:42022] (2 of 5) [CMA-1441/2013]

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 09.08.2001

Manoj (5 years old at the time of the accident) was travelling on

the bike bearing registration no. RJ24 M 1222, which was being

ridden by Mr. Prem Singh, as a pillion rider along with his mother-

Mrs. Meera and one other person. And at around 3:45PM, the

truck bearing registration no. RJ16U6001 (hereinafter as 'the

offending vehicle'), which was being driven by the Respondent

no.1/owner-driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed into the

bike and as a result of the accident Manoj (hereinafter as 'the

deceased child') died during the course of treatment. The FIR no.

75 was lodged before the Police Station Looni on 09.08.2001 and

after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Respondent

no. 1/owner-driver. Subsequently, the the appellants/claimants

filed the claim petition- MAC Case no. 616/2010 under Section

166 of the Act before the learned tribunal, seeking compensation

on account of the death of the deceased child. As the respondent

no.1/owner-driver failed to appear before the learned tribunal

despite completion of due service, ex-parte proceeding was drawn

against him. A reply to the claim petition was filed by the

respondent no.2/insurance company before the learned tribunal.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties learned tribunal

framed four issues. The appellants/claimants examined four

witnesses and produced 23 documentary evidences. The

respondents did not produce any evidence before the learned

tribunal. After hearing the parties and on the basis of the material

available on record the leaned tribunal partly allowed the MAC

case no. 616/2010 vide the impugned award and awarded Rs.

1,00,000/- along with interest @8.5% (from the date of the filing

[2024:RJ-JD:42022] (3 of 5) [CMA-1441/2013]

of the claim petition i.e., 31.07.2010) as compensation to the

appellants/claimants and held respondents jointly and severally

liable to pay the said compensation.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned award the instant misc. appeal

has been preferred by the appellants/claimants.

5. The service of the Respondent no.1/owner-driver was dispensed

with vide order dated 21.07.2016.

6. Since there is no dispute as to the facts of the case the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants has

restricted his submissions only to the quantum of the

compensation as awarded by the learned tribunal.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellants/claimants submits that the learned tribunal has erred in

awarding such meager compensation on account of the death of

the deceased child.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent

no.2/insurance company refutes the submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants

and submits that the learned tribunal has awarded just

compensation as the award was passed way back in 2010.

9. Heard the counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and

perused the material available on record.

10. This court finds that the learned tribunal has awarded the

lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the

appellants/claimants. However, this court finds that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Kishan Gopal and Ors. Vs. Lala and Ors.[(2014)

1 SCC 244], where the age of the deceased child was 10 years

has taken the notional income of the deceased child as Rs.

[2024:RJ-JD:42022] (4 of 5) [CMA-1441/2013]

30,000/- p.a. looking to the facts and circumstances. Further, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kurvan Ansari and Ors. Vs. Shyam

Kishore Murmu and Ors.[(2022) 1 SCC 317], where the age of the

deceased child was 7 years, has taken notional income of the

deceased child as Rs. 25,000/- p.a. and after applying Multiplier of

15 granted total of Rs. 3,75,000/- under the head of 'loss of

dependency' and also an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to each of the

parents under the head of filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- under

the head of funeral expenses. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto and Ors[(2023) 1 SCC

204], where the age of the deceased child was 12 years, has

taken the notional income as Rs. 30,000/- p.a. including future

prospect and applied Multiplier of 15 to arrive at the compensation

awardable under the head of 'loss of dependency' and awarded Rs.

50,000/- under the conventional heads.

11. Thus, looking to the age of the deceased child (i.e., 5 years)

and peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in

the light of the above cited judgments, this court deems it

appropriate to take the notional income of the deceased child as

Rs.15,000/- p.a.. Further, the applicable multiplier would be of 15

in the light of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Divya

vs. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. [2022 INSC 1108].

Further, this court deems it fit to award Rs. 1,15,000/- under the

conventional head.

12. Thus, in view of discussion in the above paragraphs the

compensation awardable to the appellants/claimants is as under:

[2024:RJ-JD:42022] (5 of 5) [CMA-1441/2013]

Particulars Awarded by Tribunal Awarded/modified by the Court Loss of dependancy Rs. 2,25,000/-

                                   (i.e. 15,000 x 15) [A]               Rs. 1,00,000/-
                                   Conventional Heads [B]               (Lump-sum)                            Rs. 1,15,000/-
                                                                             [C]
                                   Total [A] + [B]                                                       Rs. 3,40,000/- [D]
                                   Enhanced Amount [D]-[C]                                                    Rs.2,40,000/-

                                   13.   Thus,       the        instant         appeal          preferred       by      the

appellants/claimants is partly allowed. The impugned award

passed by the learned tribunal is modified accordingly.

14. Therefore, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to get

enhanced compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- along with interest

@8.5% (same as awarded by the learned tribunal) from the filing

of the claim petition in the same manner as directed by the

learned tribunal.