Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Champa Devi vs Ashok Bhai Dabariya (2025:Rj-Jd:2859) on 16 January, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:2859]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
            S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1725/2024

1.       Smt. Champa Devi W/o Lt. Sh. Prabhuram, Aged About
         48 Years, By Cast Meghwal R/o Jhankar, Teh. Pindwada,
         Dist Sirohi.
2.       Narayanlal S/o Lt. Sh. Prabhuram, Aged About 32 Years,
         By Cast Meghwal R/o Jhankar, Teh. Pindwada, Dist Sirohi.
3.       Shilpa D/o Lt. Sh. Prabhuram, Aged About 30 Years, By
         Cast Meghwal R/o Jhankar, Teh. Pindwada, Dist Sirohi.
         Currently Resides Kojra, Teh. Pindwada, Distsirohi.
4.       Manohar Kumar S/o Lt. Sh. Prabhuram, Aged About 25
         Years, By Cast Meghwal R/o Jhankar, Teh. Pindwada, Dist
         Sirohi.
5.       Ratan Kumar S/o Lt. Sh. Prabhuram, Aged About 23
         Years, By Cast Meghwal R/o Jhankar, Teh. Pindwada, Dist
         Sirohi.
6.       Mukesh Kumar S/o Lt. Sh. Prabhuram, Aged About 21
         Years, By Cast Meghwal R/o Jhankar, Teh. Pindwada, Dist
         Sirohi.
                                                     ----Appellants
                                Versus
1.       Ashok Bhai Dabariya S/o Sh. Arjun Bhai, R/o B-403,
         Giwalay 2, Opp. Nandan Van-3, Satalite, Ahmdabad, Ps
         Anand Nagar, Ahmdabad, Gujrat. (Driver And Registered
         Owner)
2.       Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd, Through Claim
         Manager, O-12-A, Ashok Nagar, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Dist.
         Jaipur, Raj. (Insurer)
                                                  ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Jaswant Singh
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Vishal Singhal with
                               Ms. Anamika Baghmar



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                    Order

16/01/2025
1.    The present misc. appeal has been preferred by the

appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation

amount awarded vide judgment/award dated 01.02.2024 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (ADJ) Pindwara, District

Sirohi in MAC Case No. 386/2022 (180/2017) (CIS No. 386/2022).


                    (Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:39:28 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:2859]                      (2 of 7)                        [CMA-1725/2024]




      The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated

01.02.2024 awarded a sum of Rs.7,76,100/- in favour of the

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

filing of the claim petition.

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

23.03.2017, Prabhuram Meghwal was en route from Bamanwada

to Pindwara, on his motorcycle bearing registration no. RJ-38-SA-

7020. At approximately 3:00 PM, upon reaching Sarhad Jhankar, a

Toyota car bearing registration no. GJ-01-RB-1168, being driven

rashly and negligently, collided with Prabhuram's motorcycle from

behind,    resulting    in   an     accident.        Unfortunately,       Prabhuram

succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident. FIR No.

101/2017 pertaining to the accident was lodged at Police Station

Pindwara.

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

with respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.

3.    The appellants-claimants are the dependants of deceased

Prabhuram.      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.5,382/-, awarded total compensation of

Rs.7,76,100/- in favour of the appellants-claimants, the breakup

of which is as under:

     1.       Annual Income of the deceased      5,382 x 12 =
                                                 Rs.64,584/-
     2.       Loss of Income (as per the age Rs.5,86,099/-
              of the deceased between 51-55
              years a multiplier of 11, addition

                       (Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:39:28 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:2859]                    (3 of 7)                    [CMA-1725/2024]


              of 10% for future prospects and
              1/4 deductions qua personal
              expenses).
       3.     Under the head of 'Consortium'  40,000 x 4 =
                                              Rs.1,60,000/-
       4.     Under the head of 'Funeral Rs.30,000/-
              Expenses and Loss of Estate'
       7.     Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.7,76,100/-
              (round of)


       Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @6% per annum

from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 28.06.2017.

4.     Learned counsel for the appellants raised the following

grounds:

(i)    The learned Tribunal erred while computing the income of

the deceased to be merely Rs.5,382/- per month while treating

him as an un-skilled labour whereas he was employed as

Supervisor with Divine Stone, RIICO Industrial Area, Sirohi and

was earning a monthly income of Rs.17,500/-. Further, the

deceased also earned an additional income of Rs.10,000/- through

agricultural activities.

(ii)   The learned Tribunal erred while applying multiplier of 11

only whereas keeping into consideration the age of the deceased

at the time of accident, i.e. 50 years 7 months 29 days, a

multiplier of 13 ought to have been applied in terms of the

principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors.; (2009) 6 SCC 121.

Further, counsel relied upon the case of Shashikala and Ors. v.

Gangalakshmamma and Anr.; (2015) 9 SCC 150 to submit

that the multiplier to be used while computing the compensation

in motor accident claims has to be determined on basis of the age


                     (Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:39:28 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:2859]                     (4 of 7)                         [CMA-1725/2024]


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

age.

(iii)   The learned Tribunal erred while taking into consideration the

future prospects of the deceased at the rate of 10% only whereas

keeping in view the age and income of the deceased, an addition

of 30% ought to have been made with regard to future prospects

in view of the guidelines as laid down in the case of National

Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.;

(2017) 16 SCC 680.

(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

vehemently opposed the ground raised qua the income and age of

the deceased. However, he is not in a position to refute the legal

position regarding the submission made with respect to the

conventional heads.

6.      Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7.      With regard to the income of the deceased, a perusal of

Exhibit-16 i.e. Pay Slip of deceased Prabhuram issued by the

employer clearly reflects that for the month of March 2017 the

deceased was paid a Basic Pay of Rs.8,700/- and House Rent

Allowance of Rs.4,350/-. In view of the said uncontroverted

documentary evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the

monthly     income    of    the     deceased         ought        to   be   computed

@ Rs.13,050/- per month.

                      (Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:39:28 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:2859]                      (5 of 7)                      [CMA-1725/2024]


8.    Further, it is not disputed on record that the age of the

deceased was 50 years 7 months 29 days as per his driving

license (Exhibit-15). To meet out such a situation, while dealing

with an identical issue, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Shashikala (supra) observed as under:

          "16. Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth
          of the deceased as per driving licence was 16.6.1961.
          On the date of accident i.e. 14.12.2006, the deceased
          was aged 45 years, 5 months and 28 days and the
          tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the
          deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court
          has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years
          and adopted multiplier 14 which is the appropriate
          multiplier and the same is maintained. Total loss of
          dependency is calculated at Rs. 16,82,310/- (Rs.
          1,20,165/- x 14)."


9.    In view of the above ratio, this Court is of the opinion that

for the purpose of computation of compensation, the age of the

deceased ought to be considered to be 50 years. Consequently,

with regard to the deceased's future prospects and the multiplier

linked to the deceased's age, this Court draws upon the precedent

set in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and holds that addition for

the deceased's future prospects will be at the rate of 30% and the

multiplier corresponding to the deceased's age will be 13.

10.   Coming on to the amount to be awarded under the

conventional heads, 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.
                       (Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:39:28 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:2859]                       (6 of 7)                         [CMA-1725/2024]


      Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Magma

General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram;

(2018)      18      SCC     130      interpreted         'consortium'       to   be   a

compendious         term,   which       encompasses            spousal     consortium,

parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Therefore, this

Court is of the opinion that the amount as determined under

conventional heads shall be payable to each of the claimants.

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

impugned judgment/award dated 01.02.2024 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (ADJ) Pindwara, District Sirohi in MAC

Case No. 386/2022 (180/2017) (CIS No. 386/2022) is modified to

the extent that the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to the

following compensation:

      1.      Income    per    month      (after               Rs.12,724/-
              addition of future prospects
              (30%)    and   deductions      for
              personal expenses (1/4) in the
              monthly income of Rs.13,050/-)
      2.      Loss of Annual Income (as per                    Rs.12,724x12x13
              the age of 50 years of the                       =Rs.19,84,944/-
              deceased, multiplier of 13).
      3.      Under the head of 'Consortium'                 Rs.40,000x6
                                                             =Rs.2,40,000/-
      4.      Under the head of 'Loss                     of Rs.15,000/-
              Estate'
      5.      Under the head of 'Funeral                       Rs.15,000/-
              Expenses'
      6.      Total amount of compensation                     Rs.22,54,944/-
      7.      Amount awarded by Tribunal                       Rs.7,76,100/-
      8.      Enhanced        amount       of                    Rs.22,54,944/-
              compensation                                     - Rs.7,76,100/-
                                                               --------------------

Rs.14,78,844/-

12. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum

from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment

[2025:RJ-JD:2859] (7 of 7) [CMA-1725/2024]

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 claimants in terms of the

award.