Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Geeta Devi And Ors vs Mohammad Yusuf And Ors. ... on 9 September, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:37304]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2486/2016
1. Smt. Geeta Devi D/o Chuna Ram, Bhimaralai Station At
Present Chowkdiyon Ki Dhani, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
Barmer
2. Miss. Santosh D/o Chuna Ram, Bhimaralai Station At
Present Chowkdiyon Ki Dhani, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
Barmer
3. Miss Nirma D/o Chuna Ram, Bhimaralai Station At Present
Chowkdiyon Ki Dhani, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer
4. Miss Mamta D/o Chuna Ram, Bhimaralai Station At
Present Chowkdiyon Ki Dhani, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
Barmer
5. Miss. Pramila D/o Chuna Ram, Bhimaralai Station At
Present Chowkdiyon Ki Dhani, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
Barmer
6. Gumna Ram S/o Himta Ram, Bhimaralai Station At
Present Chowkdiyon Ki Dhani, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
Barmer
7. Smt. Khamma Devi W/o Gumna Ram, Bhimaralai Station
At Present Chowkdiyon Ki Dhani, Tehsil Pachpadra,
District Barmer
----Appellants
Versus
1. Mohammad Yousuf S/o Jaarab Khan, Nachirpurl, Tehsil
Raniganj, District- Pratapgarh
2. Alpesh Bhai Modi S/o Ganpat Lal Modi, Kadiyawad Chowk,
Vadnagar, Tehsil Vadnagar, District- Mehsana Gujarat
3. H.d.f.c. Errgo General Insurance Company Ltd. Through
Divisional Office, Upasana Tower, Third Floor, Subhash
Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary for claimants
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas for Insurance
Company.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
09/09/2024
1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act of
[2024:RJ-JD:37304] (2 of 5) [CMA-2486/2016]
1988') challenging the legality and validity of the award dated
15.07.2016 passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Balotra ('learned
Tribunal') in Civil Misc. Claim No.40/2015 (184/2014) whereby the
learned Tribunal awarded the amount of compensation in favour of
the appellants and liability to pay the same was fastened upon the
Insurance Company.
2. The appellants/claimants filed a claim petition against the
present respondents before the learned Tribunal stating therein
that on 30.08.2014 while Chuna Ram (since deceased) was driving
the Truck Trailer of the employer from Bhachau towards Rajkot, at
that moment, the respondent-driver driving the offending Truck in
a rash and negligent manner, hit the Truck driven by Chuna Ram.
Resultantly, he received grievous injuries and succumbed to death.
An FIR of the said incident was registered wherein after
investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the
respondent No.1-driver. The claimants claimed compensation for
death of Chuna Ram of an amount to the tune of Rs.63,00,000/-
under various heads.
3. Service was effected upon the respondents. The owner and
driver of the offending vehicle chose not to appear and hence, ex-
parte proceedings were initiated against them.
4. The respondent-Insurance Company filed a written
statement against the claim petition of the claimants and denied
the averments of the same.
5. As per the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed four issues.
Oral and documentary evidence was led/produced by the
claimants in support of their claim petition to prove their case. On
the contrary, no evidence was led by the respondents in defence.
[2024:RJ-JD:37304] (3 of 5) [CMA-2486/2016]
6. After hearing both the parties and examining the documents
of the parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim
petition of the claimants and thus, being dissatisfied of the award,
the appellants/claimants have preferred the present misc. appeal.
7. Learned counsel representing the appellants/claimants
submits that the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in law and
facts of the case, as the amount of compensation awarded
towards pecuniary head i.e. 'loss of income', is on a lower side. He
thus, urges that the amount of compensation under pecuniary and
non-pecuniary heads, deserves to be enhanced as per the
guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi : [2017 (16) SCC
680] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : AIR
2009 SC 3104.
8. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents
restricts his submissions to the extent of quantum of
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the
claimants. In this regard he further submits that quantum of
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the
appellants/claimants, is on a higher side and thus, prays that the
instant misc. appeal warrants rejection.
9. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
Bar and have gone through the materials available on record.
10. This Court finds that it is undisputed that the deceased was a
driver having a valid licence and was employed in the State of
Gujarat, therefore, the minimum wages prescribed in the State of
Gujarat for a skilled labour ought to have been applied by the
learned Tribunal while determining the income of the deceased.
[2024:RJ-JD:37304] (4 of 5) [CMA-2486/2016]
Since, the minimum wages at that time for the skilled labour in
the State of Gujarat was Rs.8,790/- per month, therefore, income
of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8,790/- per month.
11. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), the
quantum of compensation which is awarded by the learned
Tribunal in favour of the appellants/claimants, is on a lower side.
Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled to enhancement
under the head 'loss of income' and 'non-pecuniary heads'.
12. Accordingly, this misc. appeal preferred by the
appellants/claimants is partly allowed. The judgment/award dated
15.07.2016 passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Balotra in Civil
Misc. Claim No.40/2015 (184/2014), is modified accordingly and
the claimants are held entitled to get enhanced compensation as
under: -
"Enhancement towards Pecuniary Heads"
Income of the deceased i.e. Rs.8790/- per month x 12 (per
annum) = Rs.1,05,480/-
(Add) Future Prospects 40% (Rs.42,192/-) Rs.1,47,672
(Rs.1,05,480 + Rs.42,192/-)
(Less) Personal Deduction 1/4th (Rs.36,918/-) Rs.1,10,754/-
Rs.1,47,672/- minus Rs.36,918/-
Multiplier of 17 = Rs.1,10,754/- x 17
(A) TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS HEAD "Rs.18,82,818/-"
"Enhancement towards Non-Pecuniary Heads"
(Add) Consortium i.e. Rs.48,000/- x 7 Rs.3,36,000/-
(dependents)
(Add) Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
(Add) Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-
(B) TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS HEAD "Rs.3,72,000/-"
(A)+(B) (Rs.18,82,818/- + Rs.3,72,000/-) Rs.22,54,818/-
GRAND TOTAL (round figure)
(Less) Awarded by Tribunal Rs.16,07,000/-
ENHANCED AMOUNT Rs.6,47,818/-
[2024:RJ-JD:37304] (5 of 5) [CMA-2486/2016]
13. The appellants/claimants are thus held entitled to get
enhanced compensation of Rs.6,47,818/- in the terms stated
above. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of
deposit. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the
respondent Insurance Company with the Tribunal within a period
of 'two months' from today failing which, the interest shall stand
enhanced @ 7.5% per annum from the date of this order till actual
realization. No costs.
14. Record be returned to the learned Tribunal forthwith.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
46-/Devesh Thanvi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
