Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Sumitra Devi Savitri Devi vs Ranjeet Singh Ranjeet Ram And Ors. ... on 16 October, 2024

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2024:RJ-JD:42222]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1399/2016

 Smt. Sumitra Devi @ Savitri Devi W/o Lt. Shri Omprakash, Aged
 about 55 years, R/o 15 S.G.R., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
 Ganganagar (Raj.).
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                     Versus
 1.    Ranjeet Singh @ Ranjeet Ram S/o Shri Moti Ram, R/o
       Khothawali, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
                                                                   (Jeep Owner)
 2.    The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Sri Ganganagar
       Road, Hanuman Junction through its Branch Manager.
                                                                  (Jeep Insurer)
 3.    Harvindra Singh S/o Shri Satnam Singh, R/o Bhikhivind,
       District Tarantaran (Punjab).
                                                                  (Truck Owner)
 4.    Parvindra Singh S/o Shri Satnam Singh, R/o Bhikhivind,
       District Tarantaran (Punjab)
                                                                   (Truck Driver)
 5.    The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Moga (Punjab),
       through its Branch Manager.
                                                                  (Truck Insurer)
                                                                 ----Respondents
                              Connected With
                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1072/2016
 Smt. Sumitra Devi @ Savitri Devi W/o Lt. Shri Omprakash, Aged
 about 55 years, R/o 15 S.G.R., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
 Ganganagar (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                     Versus
 1.    Ranjeet Singh @ Ranjeet Ram S/o Shri Moti Ram, R/o
       Khothawali, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
                                                                   (Jeep Owner)
 2.    The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Sri Ganganagar
       Road, Hanuman Junction through its Branch Manager.
                                                                  (Jeep Insurer)
 3.    Harvindra Singh S/o Shri Satnam Singh, R/o Bhikhivind,
       District Tarantaran (Punjab).
                                                                  (Truck Owner)

                     (Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:25:17 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:42222]                  (2 of 14)                      [CMA-1399/2016]


 4.    Parvindra Singh S/o Shri Satnam Singh, R/o Bhikhivind,
       District Tarantaran (Punjab)
                                                                   (Truck Driver)
 5.    The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Moga (Punjab),
       through its Branch Manager.
                                                                  (Truck Insurer)
                                                                 ----Respondents
                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1400/2016
 Smt. Sumitra Devi @ Savitri Devi W/o Lt. Shri Omprakash, Aged
 about 55 years, R/o 15 S.G.R., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
 Ganganagar (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                     Versus
 1.    Ranjeet Singh @ Ranjeet Ram S/o Shri Moti Ram, R/o
       Khothawali, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
                                                                   (Jeep Owner)
 2.    The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Sri Ganganagar
       Road, Hanuman Junction through its Branch Manager.
                                                                  (Jeep Insurer)
 3.    Harvindra Singh S/o Shri Satnam Singh, R/o Bhikhivind,
       District Tarantaran (Punjab).
                                                                  (Truck Owner)
 4.    Parvindra Singh S/o Shri Satnam Singh, R/o Bhikhivind,
       District Tarantaran (Punjab)
                                                                   (Truck Driver)
 5.    The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Moga (Punjab),
       through its Branch Manager.
                                                                  (Truck Insurer)
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :    Mr. Praveen Vyas.
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. M.S. Purohit and Mr. Amit Purohit
                                for Insurance Company.
                                Mr. Durgesh Khatri for
                                Mr. N.K. Sharma for R3 and R4 only in
                                S.B.CMA no.1400/2016



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Judgment

[2024:RJ-JD:42222] (3 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016]

16/10/2024

1. These Civil Misc. Appeals, seeking enhancement, have been

preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(hereinafter as 'the Act') against the common judgment and

award dated 27.01.2016 (hereinafter as 'the impugned award')

passed by the MACT, Sri Ganganagar [hereinafter as 'the learned

tribunal'] in MAC Case No.12/2009, 13/2009 & 14/2009

respectively, whereby the learned tribunal partly allowed the claim

petitions(filed under Section 166 of the Act) of the

appellant/claimant and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in

both MAC Case no.14/2009 and MAC Case no.13/2009 and

Rs.2,82,468/- in MAC Case no.12/2009 along with interest @9%

in all of the aforesaid claim petitions, while holding respondents

No.1/owner (Owner of the Bolero Jeep) & Respondent

no.2/insurance company (Insurance Company of the Bolero Jeep)

jointly and severally liable to pay the respective compensation

amounts. Since all the aforesaid appeals arise from the common

impugned award, the same are being decided by this common

judgment.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 15.08.2008,

Kuldeep(Son of the appellant/claimant) alongwith his wife Sanjula

(daughter-in-law of the appellant/claimant) and Jaspal (grandson

of the appellant) was travelling in the Bolero Jeep bearing

registration no. RJ31 U 0182, which was being driven by the

deceased Krishanlal met with an accident with the truck bearing

registration no. PB05 5L 5635 and as a result of the accident

Kuldeep (hereinafter as 'the deceased-1'), Sanjula (hereinafter as

[2024:RJ-JD:42222] (4 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016]

'the deceased-2') and Jaspal (hereinafter as 'the deceased-3')

died. Subsequently, the appellant/claimant filed MAC case no.

14/2009 (on account of death of the deceased-3), MAC case

no.12/2009 (on account of death of the deceased-1) and MAC

case no. 13/2009 (on account of death of the deceased-2) before

the learned tribunal claiming compensation therein.

3. The respondents (except respondent no.4/driver of the

truck) filed their reply to the claim petitions. And on the basis of

the pleadings of the parties the learned tribunal framed seven

issues.

4. The appellant/claimant examined four witnesses(AW1 to

AW4) and produced documentary evidences (from Ex.1 to Ex.16)

in support the claim petitions. The respondents examined one

witness NAW1(Vishal Madan) and produced documentary

evidence(Ex. NAW3/1, 3/3, 3/5 and Ex. NAW 5/2).

5. After hearing all the parties the learned tribunal partly

allowed the claim petitions of the appellant/claimant and awarded

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in both MAC Case no.14/2009 and

MAC Case no.13/2009 and Rs.2,82,468/- in MAC Case no.12/2009

along with interest @9% in all of the aforesaid claim petitions,

while holding respondents No.1/owner (Owner of the Bolero Jeep)

& Respondent no.2/insurance company (Insurance Company of

the Bolero Jeep) jointly and severally liable to pay the respective

compensation amounts.

6. Aggrieved by the same, instant appeals have been preferred

by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the

compensation awarded in the respective claim petitions.

[2024:RJ-JD:42222] (5 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016]

7. Since there is no disputes as to the facts of the case the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant

have restricted his arguments to the quantum of compensation as

awarded in the respective claim petitions.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant/claimant in S.B. CMA No. 1399/2016 (wherein the

impugned award passed in MAC case no.14/2009 is under

challenge) submits that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding

a lump-sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of death of the

deceased-3.

9. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant/claimant in S.B. CMA No. 1072/2016 (wherein the

impugned award passed in MAC case no.12/2009 is under

challenge) submits that the learned tribunal has erred in not

considering the income of the deceased-1 as Rs. 7580/- per

month which was evident from the Ex.18 (Reply dated 21.09.2012

by the concerned authority pursuant to the RTI Application) which

clearly mentions that the deceased-1 was working as Lower

Division Clerk(LDC) since 28.03.2006 and used to get Rs.7580/-

per month subsequent to the completion of his probation period in

the service on 28.03.2008 and the same was also verified and

stated by AW-4 (Secretary of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Category 'B',

Golupura) in his statement before the learned tribunal. He further

submits that the learned tribunal has erred in not awarding any

amount under the head of loss of estate. He further submits that

the learned tribunal has erred in taking only 1/3 part (Rs.1017/-)

of the income(after adding future prospect and after deducting 1/3

[2024:RJ-JD:42222] (6 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016]

on account of personal expenses) of the deceased for the

calculation of loss of dependency.

10. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant/claimant in S.B. CMA No. 1400/2016 (wherein the

impugned award passed in MAC case no.13/2009 is under

challenge) submits that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding

a lump-sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of death of the

deceased-2. He further submits that appellant/claimant is entitled

to compensation under the heads of loss of dependency, loss of

consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. For this

submission he has placed reliance on the following judgments:

Rajendra Singh and ors. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And ors., (2020) 7 SCC 256; Bhagwan Sahay and Ors. vs. Ganguram and ors., 2016 3 ACC 847; N. Jayashree and ors. vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. and ors., 2022 14 SCC 712.

11. Per Contra, 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 appellant/

claimant in all the appeals and also submits in S.B. CMA

No.1072/2016 that the learned tribunal has rightly assessed the

income of the deceased as Rs.3050/- per month as

Ex.17A(Service Book of the deceased) mentions that deceased-1

would be getting Rs.3050/- per month until he clears the

upcoming typing test.

12. Heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and

perused the material available on record.

[2024:RJ-JD:42222] (7 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016]

13. This court, with respect to S.B. CMA No. 1399/2016 (wherein

the impugned award passed in MAC case no.14/2009 is under

challenge) finds that the learned tribunal has awarded

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss

of care and mental agony respectively as mentioned in the

impugned award) for the mental agony suffered by the

appellant/claimant as a result of untimely death of the deceased-3

who was 1.5 years old at the time of the accident. Further, the

learned tribunal has failed to award any amount under the

conventional heads.

13.1 This court also 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. 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

amount 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

[2024:RJ-JD:42222] (8 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016]

head of 'loss of dependency' and awarded Rs. 50,000/- under the

conventional heads.

13.2 Thus, looking to the age of the deceased child (i.e., 1.5

years) and peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case

(the appellant/claimant being an old lady and the only survivor in

the family) 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. to arrive at a just

compensation. Further, the applicable multiplier would be of 15 in

the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divya

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

Further, this court, looking to the fact that appellant/claimant is

the sole claimant, calculates the award payable under the

conventional heads to Rs.66,550/- and after rounding off the

same, awards Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads.

14. Further, this court, with respect to S.B. CMA No. 1072/2016

(wherein the impugned award passed in MAC case no.12/2009 is

under challenge) finds that the learned tribunal has failed to

award any amount under the head of 'loss of estate' and the same

deserves to be awarded in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay

Sethi[(2017) 16 SCC 680]. Also, the learned tribunal has erred in

assessing the income of the deceased-1 as Rs.3050/- on the basis

of Ex.17A (Service Book of the deceased) as Ex.18 (Reply Dated

21.09.2012 to the Right To Information Application) wherein the

Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi Category B, Golupura provided the

information that the deceased-1 was working as Lower Division

[2024:RJ-JD:42222] (9 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016]

Clerk(LDC) since 28.03.2006 and subsequent to his completion of

the probation period on 28.03.2008 used to get Rs.7580/- per

month. Moreover, the concerned person (AW-4) i.e., Secretary of

Krishi Upaj Mandi Category B, Golupura (who provided the

information, which is contained in Ex.18) verified the contents of

Ex.18 before the learned tribunal in his statements. Thus, there

was no reason for the learned tribunal to discard this clear

evidence pertaining to the income of the deceased-1. Further, it is

also important to note here that there is nothing available on

record to show that deceased-1 has not cleared the said typing

test as mentioned in Ex.17A, therefore the contention raised by

the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent

no.2/insurance company that as per Ex.17A the deceased-1 would

have received the increased salary only after clearing the

upcoming typing test does not have any force. Thus, in absence to

any evidence to the contrary, this court arrives at the conclusion

that the income of the deceased-1 has to be assessed as

Rs.7580/- per month as per Ex.18. Further, this court finds that

the deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased-1

should be 1/2 in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

and Ors.,[(2009) 6 SCC 121] inasmuch as the appellant/claimant

is the sole dependent since the deceased-2 (wife of the deceased-

1) and the deceased-3 (son of the deceased-1), who could have

been considered as dependent on the income of the deceased-1,

have died in the same accident.

[2024:RJ-JD:42222] (10 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016]

15. Further, this court, with respect to S.B. CMA No. 1400/2016

(wherein the impugned award passed in MAC case no.13/2009 is

under challenge) finds that the learned tribunal has awarded

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- under the heads of

loss of care and mental agony respectively as mentioned in the

impugned award) for the mental agony suffered by the

appellant/claimant as a result of untimely death of the deceased-

2. Further, the learned tribunal has erred in not awarding any

amount under the heads of loss of dependency, funeral expense,

loss of estate and consortium.

15.1 This court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirti v.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 166 has made the

following pertinent observation with respect to the calculation of

just compensation in case of death of a homemaker:

"41. Therefore, on the basis of the above, certain general observations can be made regarding the issue of calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation which can be summarised as follows:

41.1. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law. 41.2. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all.

[2024:RJ-JD:42222] (11 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016]

41.3. Various methods can be employed by the court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

41.4. The court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally."

15.2 This court, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the present case, deems it appropriate to take the notional income

of the deceased-2 as Rs.3000/- per month. Further, in the light of

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh

and ors. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And ors., (2020) 7

SCC 256 and looking to the age of the deceased-2 i.e., 28 years,

this court finds that future prospect @40% should be awarded as

per the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi[(2017) 16 SCC 680]

and also the applicable multiplier would be of 17. Further, this

court is of the view that the appellant/claimant, the deceased-1

(husband of the deceased-2) and deceased-3 (son of the

deceased-2) cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased-2

thus, while taking into consideration the same situation as that of

a bachelor, deduction of 1/2 on account of personal expenses of

the deceased-1 ought to be made in the light of the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and Ors.,[(2009) 6 SCC 121].

[2024:RJ-JD:42222] (12 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016]

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

compensation that is allowable to the appellant/claimant in the

respective appeals is as under:

In S.B. C.M.A. No. 1399/2016:

S.N Particulars                   Amount     as                         Amount      as
o.                                awarded    by                         awarded/mo
                                  the   learned                         dified by this
                                  tribunal                              court
1.   (add) Loss of dependency:                   Rs.50,000/-          + Rs.2,25,000/-
       15,000 (notional income per               Rs.50,000/-
     annum) x 15 (Multiplier) =       [as    awarded
     Rs.2,25,000/- [A]                under        the
2.                                                                      Rs. 70,000/-
                                      heads of loss of
     (add) Conventional heads [B]                                       (rounded off)
                                      care        and
                                      mental agony
                                      respectively]
                 Gross Total [A]+[B] Rs.01,00,000/-                     Rs.02,95,000/-
                                      [C]                               [D]
                            Enhanced Amount [D]-[C]
                                                                        Rs.1,95,000/-




     In S.B. C.M.A. No. 1072/2016:

S.N Particulars                                  Amount      as         Amount     as
o.                                               awarded by the         awarded/modif
                                                 learned                ied   by this
                                                 tribunal               court
1.   (add) Compensation towards loss             Rs.2,07,468/-          Rs.11,59,740/-
     of dependency
     7580 (per month) +3790(future
     prospect @50%)- 5685 (1/2
     deduction on account of personal
     expenses) x 12 x 17 (Multiplier)
     = Rs.11,59,740/- [A]
2.   (add) Loss of Consortium 48,400             Rs. 50,000/-           Rs.48,400/-
     x 1= 48,400/- [B]
3.   (add) Funeral Expenses [C]                  Rs.25,000 /-           Rs.18,150/-
4.   (add) Loss of Estate [D]                    nil                    Rs. 18,150/-
        Gross Total [A]+[B]+[C]+[D]              Rs.02,82,468/-         Rs.12,44,440/-
                                                 [E]                    [F]




      [2024:RJ-JD:42222]                 (13 of 14)                         [CMA-1399/2016]


                                 Enhanced Amount [F]-[E]
                                                                           Rs.9,61,972/-



     In S.B. C.M.A. No. 1400/2016:

S.N Particulars                          Amount        as Amount       as
o.                                       awarded by the awarded/modif
                                         learned tribunal ied   by   this
                                                          court
1.   (add) Compensation towards loss                      Rs.4,28,400/-
     of dependency
                                         50,000+50,000
     3000    (notional   income     per
                                         [as     awarded
     month) +1200 (future prospect
                                         under the heads
     @40%)- 2100 (1/2 deduction on
                                         of loss of care
     account of personal expenses) x
                                         and       mental
     12    x    17     (Multiplier)   =
                                         agony
     Rs.4,28,400/- [A]
2.   (add) Loss of Consortium 48,400 respectively]        Rs.48,400/-
     x 1= 48,400/- [B]
3.   (add) Funeral Expenses [C]                           Rs.18,150/-
4.   (add) Loss of Estate [D]                             Rs. 18,150/-
        Gross Total [A]+[B]+[C]+[D] Rs.1,00,000/-         Rs.5,13,100/-
                                         [E]              [F]
                                Enhanced Amount [F]-[E]
                                                          Rs.4,13,100/-



     17.   Accordingly,   instant       misc.       appeals           preferred   by   the

     respective    appellant(s)/claimant(s)            are     partly      allowed.    The

impugned award dated 27.01.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal

in MAC Case No.14/2009, MAC Case No.12/2009 and MAC Case

No.13/2009 is enhanced and modified accordingly.