Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Geeta And Ors vs Shankar Singh And Anr. ... on 10 September, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:37603]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1928/2014
1. Geeta w/o Sh. Khem Singh, aged about 35 years.
2. Bhuri Devi w/o Kalyan Singh, aged 55 years.
3. Laxman Singh s/o Khem Singh, aged 19 years.
(All r/o Thikrana Mendratan, Tehsil-Beawar, Ajmer, at
present r/o Barr, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
1. Shankar Singh s/o Shri Gheesa Singh, r/o Near Hans
Complex, Ajmer Road, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
2. National Insurance Co.Ltd., through its Branch Office 12-B,
Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Panwar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav R-2 (Ins.Co.)
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
10/09/2024
1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the
appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 ('the Act of 1988') challenging the legality and validity of the
award dated 12.11.2014 passed by the learned Judge, MACT,
Jaitaran, District Pali ('learned Tribunal') in Motor Accidents Claim
Case No.152/2011 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded the
amount of compensation in favour of the appellants and liability to
pay the same was fastened upon the respondents jointly and
severally.
2. The appellants/claimants filed a claim petition against the
present respondents before the learned Tribunal stating therein
that on 28.11.2009, Khem Singh and Madan Singh were going to
Ganeshpura from Thikrana Mendratan on a motorcycle. When they
reached near Govindpura Bypass, a Maruti Van bearing
registration No.RJ-14-1C-9733 coming from Udaipur Chungi Naka
[2024:RJ-JD:37603] (2 of 4) [CMA-1928/2014]
side, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle
and as a result whereof, both Khem Singh and Madan Singh
received grievous injuries and during treatment, Khem Singh died.
3. Service was effected upon the respondents. Both the
respondents filed reply to the claim petition in which they denied
the averments made by the claimants.
4. 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.
5. After hearing both the parties and examining the documents,
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.
6. Learned counsel representing the appellants/claimants
submits that the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in law and
facts of the case, as the learned Tribunal has considered the
deceased as an unskilled labour and assessed his income only to
the tune of Rs.4,316/- per month, which is too meager, as he used
to work in agricultural fields and was earning Rs.8,000/- per
month at the time of his death. He also submits that looking to
the age of the deceased i.e. 32 years, future prospects ought to
have been awarded 40%, but the learned Tribunal has overlooked
this aspect and not a single pennny has been awarded under the
said head. 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
[2024:RJ-JD:37603] (3 of 4) [CMA-1928/2014]
(16) SCC 680] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation : AIR 2009 SC 3104.
7. 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.
8. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
Bar and have gone through the materials available on record.
9. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal was perfectly
justified in assessing income of the deceased to the tune of
Rs.4,316/- per month, as no evidence whatsoever has been
produced/placed on record which demonstrates that the deceased
used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month, but it is also not in dispute
that the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding any amount
under the head 'future prospects'. Thus, the amount of
compensation under the head 'future prospects' deserves to be
enhanced.
10. 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'.
11. Accordingly, this misc. appeal preferred by the
appellants/claimants is partly allowed. The judgment/award dated
[2024:RJ-JD:37603] (4 of 4) [CMA-1928/2014]
12.11.2014 passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Jaitaran, District
Pali in Motor Accidents Claim Case No.152/2011, 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.4,316/- per month x 12 (per annum) =
Rs.51,792/-
(Add) Future Prospects 40% (Rs.20,717/-) Rs.72,509/-
(Rs.51,792/- + Rs.20,717/-)
(Less) Personal Deduction 1/3rd (Rs.24,170/-) Rs.48,339/-
Rs.72,509/- minus Rs.24,170/-
Multiplier of 16 (as aged 32) = Rs.48,339/- x 16
(A) TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS HEAD "Rs.7,73,424/-"
"Enhancement towards Non-Pecuniary Heads"
(Add) Consortium i.e. Rs.48,000/- x 3 (dependents) Rs.1,44,000/-
(Add) Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
(Add) Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-
(B) TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS HEAD "Rs.1,80,000/-"
(A)+(B) (Rs.7,73,424/- + Rs.1,80,000/-) Rs.9,53,424/-
GRAND TOTAL (round figure)
(Less) Awarded by Tribunal Rs.5,90,576/-
ENHANCED AMOUNT Rs.3,62,848/-
12. The appellants/claimants are thus held entitled to get
enhanced compensation of Rs.3,62,848/- 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.
13. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the respondents
with the Tribunal jointly and severally 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. Record be returned to the learned Tribunal
forthwith.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
21-/Devesh Thanvi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
