Appeal against Civil Judge's award of damages in a motor vehicle accident claim for loss of estate due to deceased's death. Court found evidence insufficient to support higher income claim and rejected enhancement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.287/2010
S. B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 287/2010 TAFAJJUL HUSSAIN & OTHERS V. JAYA SINGHVI & OTHERS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 05/07/2010
HON'BLE MR. C.M.TOTLA, J.
Mr. Shambhoo Singh, for Appellant (s). Mr. Suresh Shreemali, for Respondent No.2. Mr. B.S.Bhati, for Respondent No.4.
BY THE COURT:
Heard learned counsels. In an accident, occurring on April 10, 2000, as result of injuries caused wife of appellant No.1 and mother of appellants No.2 and 3 Smt. Farida expired.
Appellants, in their claim application, averring age of deceased to be 32 years – doing work of knitting and tailoring, earning Rs.1,20,000/per year, claimed Rs.4,80,000/- as loss of income and about Rs.3,00,000/for loss of consortium, funeral expenses etc.
Learned Judge, describing and analyzing evidence in detail, inferred age to be 32-33 years-computed annual notional earning Rs.15,000/resulting dependency at Rs.10,000/- and applying multiplier of 17, allowed Rs.1,70,000/- as loss of earning and Rs.22,000/- on other counts.
Learned counsel asserts that amount of damages due to loss of earning is gross under-estimation. Argued that deceased was earning minimum Rs.3,000/- per month at the relevant time and appellant's dependency on her income cannot be less than 2/3rd i.e., Rs.2,000/- per month and applying multiplier 17-18, the amount should have been
2 S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.287/2010
something above Rs. 4 lacs. Drawing attention towards evidence produced, argued that children, at that time, being above 9-10 years age, she has all the time to do earning work. Also submitted that for other heads, amount allowed is too meagre.
Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 4 argued that on very strong and cogent reasons, total Rs.1,92,000/- is estimated to be just damages. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also submitted that much before the incident and some time in year 1999, R2 transferred vehicle to R1.
Learned counsel for respondent No.4 insurance company submitted that damages allowed, if not excessive, certainly are not on lesser side.
Anxiously considering arguments, gone through the record. Per application itself, the deceased was 34 years and children at that time respectively 13 and 9 years. Earning Rs.33,000/- is described on the basis of tailoring and knitting work etc. Incident is of the year, 2000. Learned tribunal Judge assumed income Rs.15,000/- per year, i.e., Rs.1250/- per month and estimated dependency at Rs.10,000/-. In absence of any very definite evidence, regarding doing work of knitting, tailoring or any like that, estimated income in year, 2000, seems to be on right side. In addition, multiplier of 18 has been applied and as age was 34 years, in above view of the matter, in the opinion of the Court, no case for enhancing damage amount on basis of loss of earning dependency is made out.
In view of the above, the appeal is rejected.
(C. M. TOTLA), J.
scd
Tafajjul Hussain & Others
Jaya Singhvi & Others
C.M. Totla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
