Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Amra And Anr vs Khaleelu Rehman And Anr. ... on 23 October, 2024

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2024:RJ-JD:43665]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 917/2016

     1. Amra S/o Mangu Bagariya, aged 48 years, r/o Swaipur,
       Tehsil Kotdi, District Bhilwara , Rajasthan.
     2. Smt. Anopi w/o Amra, aged 43 years, r/o Swaipur, Tehsil
       Kotdi, District Bhilwara , Rajasthan.
                                                          ----Appellant/claimants
                                        Versus
     1. Khaleelu Rehman s/o Abul Rehman, aged 46 years, r/o
       Jahajpur, Dist. Bhilwara
                                                             (Driver of the vehicle)
     2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office
       Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur, at present Beat
       Incharge, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
       through Cheif Manager, Bhilwara Dipo.
                                                             (Owner of the vehicle)
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :     Mr. Narendra Rajpurohit for the
                                    claimants
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. LK Purohit for R-2



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

23/10/2024

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 06.01.2016 (hereinafter as 'the

impugned award') passed by MACT Bhilwara (hereinafter as 'the

learned Tribunal') in MAC Case no. 446/2013 (filed under Section

166 of the Act), whereby the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.

3,15,000/- along with interest @6% from the date of filing of the

claim petition i.e., 24.12.2012 to the appellants/claimants and

[2024:RJ-JD:43665] (2 of 5) [CMA-917/2016]

held the respondents/non-claimants jointly and severally liable to

pay the said compensation.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 29.10.2012 a

bus bearing reg. No.RJ-36-PA-0738 driven by the respondent No.1

in rash and negligent manner hit the daughter fo the appellants-

claimants and due to the injuries sustained by her, she succumbed

to death. The deceased daughter was 15 years old at the time of

the accident and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing the

work of broom making and other labour work. Subsequently, the

appellants/claimants filed the claim petition-MAC Case no.

446/2013 under Section 166 of the Act before the learned

tribunal, seeking compensation on account of the death of the

child. After service upon the respondents, the respondent no.1 did

not appear before the learned Tribunal, accordingly, the Tribunal

proceeded ex parte against the respondent no.1 and the

respondent No.2 appeared and filed reply to the claim petition.

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

framed four issues. The appellants/claimants examined 1 witness

and produced some documentary evidences whereas the

respondents examined 1 witness and produced documentary

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. 446/2013 vide the

impugned award and awarded Rs. 3,15,000/- along with interest

@6% (from the date of the filing of the claim petition i.e.,

24.12.2012 as compensation to the appellants/claimants and held

respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the said

compensation.

[2024:RJ-JD:43665] (3 of 5) [CMA-917/2016]

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

has been preferred by the appellants/claimants.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-

Insurance Company submits that the award passed by the learned

Tribunal is just and calls for no interference by this Court.

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

perused the material available on record.

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

lump-sum amount of Rs. 3,15,000/- 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 15

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

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

[2024:RJ-JD:43665] (4 of 5) [CMA-917/2016]

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.

10. Thus, looking to the age of the deceased child (i.e., 15

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.30,000/- 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, looking into the facts of the instant case

where there are two claimants i.e. the parents of the deceased,

this court deems it just to award Rs. 1,15,000/- (rounded off from

Rs.1,14,950/-) under the conventional heads.

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

compensation awardable to the appellants/claimants is as under:

Particulars Awarded by Tribunal Awarded/modified by the Court Loss of dependancy Rs. 4,50,000/-

(i.e. 30,000 x 15) [A]               Rs. 3,15,000/-
Conventional Heads [B]               (Lump-sum)                           Rs. 1,15,000/-
                                          [C]                            (Rounded Off)
Total [A] + [B]                                                       Rs. 5,65,000/- [D]
Enhanced Amount [D]-[C]                                                   Rs.2,50,000/-


                                    [2024:RJ-JD:43665]                     (5 of 5)                        [CMA-917/2016]



                                   12.   Thus,      the       instant         appeal          preferred      by     the

appellants/claimants is partly allowed. The impugned award

passed by the learned tribunal is modified accordingly.

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

enhanced compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @6%

(same as awarded by the learned tribunal) from the filing of the

claim petition in the same manner as directed by the learned

tribunal.