Recently, the Rajasthan High Court decided on an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s judgment, wherein the tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 8,04,000 to the claimant. The Court modified the compensation amount, observing that the calculation of the deceased’s income based on the minimum wages for unskilled labour was unreasonable given his potential for a brighter future, and instead, deemed the income should reflect semi-skilled labour wages.
The appeal was filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Suratgarh in the MAC Case. The claimant sought compensation following the death of her 18-year-old son in a motor accident that occurred on 21.05.2013. The Tribunal had awarded a compensation amount of Rs. 8,04,000 which included amounts for loss of income, consortium, funeral expenses and applied interest at 8% per annum. The tribunal had calculated the deceased’s monthly income as Rs. 3,375, considering future prospects and deductions for personal expenses, the appellant challenged the income calculation, arguing that the deceased was employed in a thermal plant, earning Rs. 8,000 per month, and not based on the minimum wage for unskilled labour as the tribunal had done.
The Counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was working as a mechanic at the Suratgarh Thermal Plant and earning Rs. 8,000 per month. It was argued that the Tribunal’s use of Rs. 150 per day as the income of an unskilled labourer was incorrect, and that the deceased should have been considered to be employed in a semi-skilled capacity, thus warranting a higher compensation. In contrast, the counsel for the respondent argued that there was no evidence of the deceased’s employment or income, pointing out that the claimant had admitted in her cross-examination that her son was a student and had not submitted any documents to prove his earnings. The counsel emphasized that the Tribunal’s compensation calculations were in line with the evidence provided.
The Court noted that the deceased was 18 years of age at the time of the accident, and the claimant in her affidavit stated that he was working as a mechanic at the Suratgarh Thermal Plant. However, no documentary evidence was submitted to support the claim of employment or income. Despite the lack of documentation, the Court observed that the deceased, being young, had significant potential for a bright future. It was thus deemed unreasonable to compute his income based on minimum wages for unskilled labour. The Court referred to the government notification applicable at the relevant time, which prescribed a daily wage of Rs. 176 for semi-skilled labour, amounting to a monthly income of Rs. 5280. Accordingly, the Court recalculated the deceased’s income based on these figures.
Further, the Court upheld the multiplier of 18 and the deduction of 50% for personal expenses applied by the Tribunal, stating that these calculations were consistent with legal precedents. Similarly, the amounts awarded under the heads of consortium and funeral expenses are Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 25,000 respectively were found reasonable and not challenged by either party.
Summarizing the revised compensation, the Court remarked, "The total compensation payable to the claimant shall be Rs. 9,45,360, with the enhanced amount being Rs. 1,41,360." The Court further directed the insurance company to deposit this enhanced amount along with the previously awarded compensation within two months. It clarified that "the enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made." In case of non-compliance, "the same shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization."
The Court instructed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to ensure the disbursement of the award amount to the claimant "in terms of the award," thereby concluding the case with equitable redress for the claimant.
Case Title: Gurvinder Kauv. Bhanwara Ram & Ors.
Coram: Justice Rekha Borana
Citation: S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1686/2017
Order Date: 14/11/2024
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Ravi Panwar, Amit Pareek
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Dinesh Kumar Joshi
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
