Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sajan Ram And Ors vs Pancharam And Ors (2024:Rj-Jd:43277) on 22 October, 2024

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2024:RJ-JD:43277]

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 698/2005

Sajan Ram (through his legal representatives..)
1. Smt. Rewati Devi W/o Shri Sajan Ram, age 85 years
2. Smt. Dhapu Devi W/o Late Shri Birbal Ram, age 50 years
3. Manoj S/o Late Shri Birbal Ram, age 31 years
4. Miss Sarita D/o late Shri Birbal Ram, age 29 years
5. Miss Sumitra D/o late Shri Birbal Ram, age 25 years
6. Miss Suman D/o late Shri Birbal Ram, age 23 years.
All resident of Hamusar, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan

                                                                       ----Appellant

                                        Versus

1. Pancharam S/o Shri Prabhu Ram, resident of Ward No.17,
Anoopgarh, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajsthan
2. Pema Ram S/o Shri Gopa Ram, resident of Ward No.18, Anoopgarh,
District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan
3. Tila Ram @ Trilok Chand S/o Shri Pancha Ram, resident of Ward
No.17, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan
4. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Office
Manager, Branch Office, near New Light Cinema, Rai Singh Nagar,
District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Narpat Ram Choudhary
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Anil Kaushik for R-4


                 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

22/10/2024

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

18.06.2003 passed by the learned Judge, MACT Ratangarh, in MAC

Case No.69/2000 whereby claim petition of the claimants was allowed

and were awarded an amount of compensation to the tune of

Rs.3,50,000/- in total with the interest @ 6% p.a while fastening the

liability upon respondents Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally.

[2024:RJ-JD:43277] (2 of 5) [CMA-698/2005]

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.08.2000 at about 4:30 PM,

deceased Birbalram was bringing wood on bicycle. When he reached

near Nai Mandi Gharsana, at that time, non-claimant driver driving the

vehicle jeep bearing Registration No.RJ13/G-2611 coming from the road

of Anoopgarh in a rash and negligent manner, hit the cycle resulting into

death of Birbalram. The FIR was lodged before the Police Station

Gharsana and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the

respondent No.3. Subsequently, the appellants/claimants filed the claim

petition- MAC Case No.69/2000 under Section 166 of the Act before the

learned Tribunal, seeking compensation on account of death of the

deceased Birbalram. As the respondents filed reply and denied the

averments made in the claim petition.

3. As per the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed the four issues.

Thereafter, claimants in support of their claim petition, examined 2

witnesses and exhibited several documents to prove their case whereas

no witness(es) or any document(s) was examined or led in defence.

4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the

claim petition of the claimants and vide judgment/award dated

18.06.2003 awarded quantum of compensation to the tune of

Rs.3,50,000/- with the interest @6% p.a. and being dissatisfied of the

award, the claimants have preferred the claim petition.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that due to

untimely of death of deceased Birbalram, 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. Further, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants

submits that the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15 only

whereas it should be 16 as per the age of deceased i.e. 35 years, thus

[2024:RJ-JD:43277] (3 of 5) [CMA-698/2005]

the award deserves to be enhanced. He also submits that as per the

Minimum Wages in 2000, the monthly income of the deceased was

Rs.1890/- and therefore the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the

loss of income while taking the income of the deceased as Rs.1800/-.

Further, he also prayed that looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 35

years, future prospects ought to have been awarded @40%, thus the

same needs to be reassessed. He also submits that the learned Tribunal

has not awarded any amount under the heads of funeral expenses and

loss of estate, thus the same should be awarded.

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 as per the minimum wages prevalent in the

year 2000, the minimum monthly wages of the deceased should be

Rs.1890/- per month, the multiplier of 16 should be applied as per the

age of the deceased i.e. 35 years, future prospect should be awarded to

the tune of 40% looking to the age and nature of the job of the

deceased. This Court also finds that amount under the heads of funeral

expenses, loss of estate should be awarded and an amount under the

head of consortium needs to be reassessed in the light judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs.

Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017)16 SCC 680. Further, the

learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd on account of personal

expenses of the deceased, however, looking to the number of

dependents i.e. 6 the deduction on account of personal expenses of the

deceased should be 1/4th as per the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble

[2024:RJ-JD:43277] (4 of 5) [CMA-698/2005]

Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104. After coming to the conclusion that the

amount of compensation awarded 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 Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra). The award is

modified in the following manner:-

Particulars                                Awarded            by Enhanced amount
                                           Tribunal
Income of the deceased                     Rs.1800/-              Rs.1890/-
(Add) 40% Future Prospects i.e.
Rs.1890/- (1890+756)=2646/-
Rs.2646/- x 12 (per annum) x 16
(multiplier)                    Rs.3,24,000/-                     Rs.3,81,024/-
(Less)   deduction      1/4th       i.e.
Rs.5,08,032/-    x       1/4th        =
Rs.1,27,008/-
(Add)     Rs.18,150/-    towards Not awarded                      Rs.36,300/-
funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/-
towards loss of estate
(Add) Rs.48,400/- towards loss of Rs.26,000/-                (to Rs.3,38,800/-
consortium x 7 (parents, wife and all)
four children)
TOTAL                                      Rs.3,50,000/-          Rs.7,56,124/
ENHANCED AMOUNT                                                   Rs.4,06,124/-

9. The judgment-cum-award dated 18.06.2003 passed by the

learned Judge, MACT Ratangarh in MAC Case No.69/2000 is enhanced/

modified in the terms stated above. The claimants are thus, held

entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.4,06,124/- in accordance

with the directions given by the learned Tribunal. The enhanced amount

shall carry interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of

filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit. Any amount, if already

paid, shall be adjusted accordingly.

[2024:RJ-JD:43277] (5 of 5) [CMA-698/2005]

10. Record be returned to the learned Tribunal forthwith. No order as

to costs.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J