Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vishan Singh Khichi vs Satpal Singh And Ors. ... on 10 January, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:2691]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1719/2012

Vishan Singh Khichi S/o Bhanwar Singh, by caste Rajput, Aged
about 55 years, R/o Village Khiwandi, Police Station Sumerpur,
District Pali (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Satpal Singh S/o Chhotu Singh, by caste Rajput, R/o House
No.202, Bhawani Nagar, Sangariasa Ki Dhani, Sangeria, District
Jodhpur. ......Driver of Car No.RJ24-CG-8618

2. M/s Rajesh Motors (Agency) Pvt. Ltd., A-1, Transport Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.). .....Owner of Car No.RJ24-CG-8618

3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Plot No.9, 2 nd Floor,
S.B. Tower, Shekhar Market, Jaipur (Raj.)
.......Insurance Company of the Car
----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Parihar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Singhal

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

10/01/2025

1. The present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-

claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount

awarded vide judgment/award dated 25.06.2012 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in MAC Case No. 119/2011.

The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated

25.06.2012 awarded a sum of Rs.9,54,626/- in favour of the

claimant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of

filing of the claim petition.

(Downloaded on 24/01/2025 at 10:23:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2691] (2 of 7) [CMA-1719/2012]

2. Brief facts as pleaded in the claim petition are that on

06.03.2011, Sushma Deval, along with her husband Vishan Singh,

their daughter Surbhi and their daughter's friends Rajna and Alka,

was traveling from Khiwandi to Jodhpur in their car bearing

registration number RJ-19-CB-5497. At 10:30 AM, when they

reached near Bandai, a car bearing registration number RJ-14-CG-

8618 driven by Satpal Singh, collided with their car. Satpal Singh

was driving rashly and negligently in the wrong direction. The

collision occurred while Vishan Singh was driving on the correct

side of the road. Unfortunately, due to the accident, Sushma Deval

succumbed to her injuries and Vishan Singh, Surbhi, Rajna and

Alka sustained grievous injuries and were taken to MDM Hospital,

Jodhpur. However, during the course of treatment, Surbhi also

passed away.

The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured

with respondent No.3 - Insurance Company.

3. The appellant-claimant is the husband of the deceased Sushma

Deval. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating

the evidence available on record and after hearing the counsel for

the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased

to be Rs.27,965/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.9,54,626/-

in favour of the appellant-claimant, the breakup of which is as

under:

1. Annual Income (after deduction of Rs.2,34,906/-
30% towards Income Tax on
monthly income of Rs.27,965/-)
2. Annual Income after deduction qua Rs.1,17,453/-
personal expenses (1/2)
3. Loss of Income (as per the age of Rs.1,17,453 x 6 =
the deceased i.e. 54 years, Rs.7,04,718/-

(Downloaded on 24/01/2025 at 10:23:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2691] (3 of 7) [CMA-1719/2012]

multiplier of 10) (As 6 years of service of
deceased was
remaining)

Rs.58,727 x 4 =
Rs.2,34,908/-
(As remaining 4 years
on pension amount)

7,04,718 + 58,727
=Rs.9,39,626/-
4. Under the head of 'consortium' Rs.10,000/-
5. Under the head of 'funeral expenses' Rs.5,000/-
6. Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.9,54,626/-

Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @6% per annum

from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 10.06.2011.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the following

grounds:

(i) Learned Tribunal while computing the income of the

deceased erroneously deducted the amount qua the allowances

from the income.

(ii) The learned Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 10 as per

the age of the deceased whereas, keeping into consideration the

age of the deceased, i.e. 54 years, a multiplier of 11 ought to

have been applied in terms of the guidelines as set out in the case

of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

and Ors.; (2009) 6 SCC 121

(iii) The learned Tribunal erred in omitting to take into

consideration the future prospects of the deceased while

computing the loss of income, which is in total contravention to

principles/guidelines as laid down in the case of National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.;

(2017) 16 SCC 680.

(Downloaded on 24/01/2025 at 10:23:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2691] (4 of 7) [CMA-1719/2012]

(iv) The learned Tribunal committed a significant error in its

adjudication by providing insufficient compensation qua the

conventional heads.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company

though vehemently opposed the submissions as made by counsel

for the appellant, but is not in a position to refute the legal

position regarding the above submissions.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was employed as a

Senior Teacher at Government Senior Secondary School,

Takhatgarh District Pali. "Income Certificate" dated 06.06.2011

(Exhibit 19) reflects the gross salary of the deceased to be

Rs.29,817/- per month (18,520/- basic pay + 9,445/- dearness

allowance + 1,852/- house rent allowance). After deducting the

amount of Rs.3,630/- (qua tax), the net payable salary comes out

to be Rs.26,187/- per month which, in the opinion of this Court,

deserves to be considered for the computation of compensation.

The deduction qua allowances made by the learned Tribunal

deserves interference as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in catena of judgments.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Sharma and

Ors. vs. Bachitar Singh and Ors.; 2011 (11) SCC 425 while

relying upon the judgments in National Insurance Company

Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava and Ors.; (2008) 2 SCC 763 and

Raghuvir Singh Matolya and Ors. vs. Hari Singh Malviya and

Ors.; (2009) 15 SCC 363 held as under:

(Downloaded on 24/01/2025 at 10:23:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2691] (5 of 7) [CMA-1719/2012]

"11. Based on the aforementioned judgments, we are of
the view that deductions made by the Tribunal on
account of HRA, CCA and medical allowance are done
on an incorrect basis and should have been taken into
consideration in calculation of the income of the
deceased. Further, deduction towards EPF and GIS
should also not have been made in calculating the
income of the deceased."

9. Further, in the recent case of Meenakshi Vs. The Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2024 INSC 573 reiterating the same

position, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"9. Recently in a judgment dated 11th July, 2024 in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini and Ors.
[Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.
4230/2019], this Court held that, allowances under the
heads of transport allowance, house rent allowance,
provident fund loan, provident fund and special
allowance ought to be added while considering the basic
salary of the victim/deceased to arrive at the
dependency factor.
10. Therefore, components of house rent allowance,
flexible benefit plan and company contribution to
provident fund have to be included in the salary of the
deceased while applying the component of rise in
income by future prospects to determine the
dependency factor. The Accident Claims Tribunal was
justified in factoring these components into the salary
of the deceased, before applying 50% rise by future
prospects due to future prospects, while calculating the
total compensation payable to the Appellant."

10. Coming on to the multiplier to be applied, as per the version

of claimant Vishan Singh (AW-1), the age of his wife was 53 years

at the time of accident. The date of birth of the deceased to be

28.05.1957 is not disputed on record. Meaning thereby, the

deceased was 53 years 9 months and 10 days of age on the date

of accident. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashikala and

Ors. v. Gangalakshmamma and Anr.;(2015) 9 SCC 150, the

multiplier to be used while computing the compensation in motor

accident claims case has to be determined on basis of the age

(Downloaded on 24/01/2025 at 10:23:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2691] (6 of 7) [CMA-1719/2012]

attained/completed by the deceased/injured and not on basis of

the running age. Hence, in view of the ratio laid down in Sarla

Verma (supra) and Shashikala (supra), this Court is of the

opinion that a multiplier of 11 as per the age of the deceased i.e.

53 years ought to have been applied.

11. Keeping in view the age of deceased to be 53 years and

further she being in a permanent government job, as per the ratio

laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition at the rate of 15%

deserves to be applied qua future prospects of the deceased.

12. So far as the amount to be awarded under the conventional

heads is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of

Pranay Sethi(supra), has fixed the amount payable under the

conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and

funeral expenses to be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and

Rs.15,000/- respectively. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion

that the said amount under conventional heads shall be payable to

the appellant-claimant.

13. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed and the

impugned judgment/award dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in MAC Case No. 119/2011 is

modified to the extent that the appellant-claimant shall be entitled

to the following compensation:

1. Income per month {after addition of Rs.15,057/-
future prospects (15%) and
deductions for personal expenses
(1/2) in the monthly income of
Rs.26,187/-}
2. Loss of Annual Income (as per the 15,057x12x11=
age of years of the deceased i.e. 53 Rs.19,87,590/-
years, multiplier of 11).

(Downloaded on 24/01/2025 at 10:23:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2691] (7 of 7) [CMA-1719/2012]

3. Under the head of 'consortium' Rs.40,000/-
4. Under the head of 'loss of estate' Rs.15,000/-
5. Under the head of 'Funeral expenses' Rs.15,000/-
6. Total amount of compensation Rs.20,57,590/-
7. Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs.9,54,626/-
8. Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.20,57,590
- Rs.9,54,626
--------------------

Rs. 11,02,964/-

14. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the

date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made.

The respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the award

amount (if not deposited yet) and the enhanced amount of

compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months from

the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the same

shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of this order

till actual realization. Upon deposition, the learned Tribunal is

directed to disburse the same to the claimant in terms of the

award.

15. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.