The High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident matter, re-determining loss of dependency based on deceased's income, number of dependents, and applicable multiplier under statutory guidelines.
Enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,34,000/- added to the original award, interest at 9% directed, and liability declared.
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]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
Smt. Rita Devi & Ors. Vs.
Mool Singh & Others.
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 221/2002
Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against Judgment and Award dated 14.01.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat in MAC Case No.93/1999.
Date of Judgment:
January 13, 2015.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA, J.
Mr. Raj Singh and Mr. Ashok Godara, for the appellants. Mr. V.K. Vyas, for respondent No.3 Mr. UCS Singhvi, for respondent No.6.
BY THE COURT:
The appellant-claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’) impugning award dated 14th of January 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
[2]
Tribunal, Sojat (for short, ‘learned Tribunal’) for enhancement of quantum of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal. While adjudicating Motor Accident Claim Case No.93 of 1999 of the appellants, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the same by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.2,17,600 against the total claim of Rs.32,18,100.
Apposite facts, necessary and germane to the matter are that on 26.06.1999 in the evening at about 6:30, while Late Ghanesh Rai alias Ganesh Kumar was travelling in Jeep No. RJ-19-C-6952 enroute to Jaitaran and jeep reached near Jaitaran on Bilara-Jodhpur road, due to head on collision with truck bearing registration No.RSQ 5259 driven in a fast, rash and negligent manner, Ganesh Rai fell on the road and the truck crushed him rolling over his head, which resulted in his death. Police Station Jaitaran registered First Information Report No.244/99 under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC against driver of jeep as well as driver of truck and on conclusion of investigation filed chargesheet against them. The appellants in the claim petition have averred that at the time of accident deceased was 23½ years old and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as labourer in
[3]
employment of Santosh Chemical. The appellantclaimants quantified the total amount of compensation Rs.32,18,100 under different heads.
The claim petition was contested by the respondents refuting all the averments contained in the claim petition.
The learned Tribunal, framed six issues for its determination and after examining the matter in its entirety, considering the evidence and other materials on record, partly allowed the claim petition of the appellants and awarded them compensation to the tune of Rs.2,17,600/- with interest @9% from the date of filing of the claim petition, while holding non-applicants No.1 to 3 Mool Singh, Hukam Singh, and Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Driver, owner and insurer of truck) jointly and severally liable for payment of 75% compensation amount awarded, and for rest of the awarded compensation amount, i.e. 25%, Sarafraj, nonapplicant No.5, the owner of jeep, was held liable.
The appellant-claimants have set out their case in the appeal by urging that amount of
[4]
compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case. Appellants have specifically pleaded that despite their proving the entire case, the learned Tribunal has erred in making assessment of reasonable compensation. As per the version of the appellants, learned Tribunal has not examined the matter objectively and in right perspective while quantifying the amount of compensation under different heads. A specific plea was raised that the compensation awarded is not commensurating with the loss suffered by the claimants.
The learned counsel for the appellants, has strenuously argued that the evidence tendered by the appellants was unimpeachable and material evidence showing the monthly income of the victim Rs.6000 per month is on record but learned Tribunal while taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1800/- and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses has assessed the compensation for loss of dependency by applying multiplier of 13, which is too low and beyond comprehension of prudency. Learned counsel would urge that in view of various jobs being carried out by the deceased, while he was alive, it was expected of the
[5]
learned Tribunal to have awarded him adequate compensation looking to his earnings and in any case not less than Rs.3750 @ Rs.125 per day. Learned counsel has also sought enhancement of the amount of compensation on the ground that learned Tribunal has not considered future loss of income to the bereaved family.
Per contra, learned counsels for the insurance companies have stoutly defended the impugned award and submitted that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and the same is not liable to be interfered with. Learned counsels would urge that a certificate, which was issued by a private employer, has been rightly construed by the learned Tribunal in the given circumstances inasmuch employer was not produced to prove recitals. Learned counsels argued that the learned Tribunal has rightly quantified the compensation while assessing loss of income to the bereaved family and the said finding cannot be faulted so as to require interference by this Court. Learned counsel for insurers urged that the compensation awarded is just and therefore, the prayer of the appellants for enhancement is not tenable. Learned
[6]
counsel for respondent No.6 United India Insurance Company, the insurer of the jeep, has placed heavy reliance on following judgments to support his contentions:
I have heard learned counsel for rival parties, perused the impugned award and scanned the entire record of the learned Tribunal.
Judicial scrutiny in the instant appeal lies in a very narrow compass and the same hovers around the quantum of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal. On thorough examination of the record of claim case, it is crystal clear that appellants have made all sincere endeavour to substantiate their claim by tendering ocular as well as documentary evidence. In this background, if the defence put forth by the respondents is examined then it would ipso facto reveal that respondents including
[7]
the insurance companies have not been able to put any defence much less substantial defence to counter the claim of the appellants. For authenticating their claim, the appellants have placed on record umpteen materials in the form of oral and documentary evidence which remained un-rebutted and unimpeached during trial at the behest of respondents. A Certificate (Ex.28) issued by Santosh Chemicals has been produced by the appellants stating that deceased was earning Rs.125 per day by doing loading work as a labourer with them. It further mentions that deceased was also doing other works of electricity fitting and of accounts and thereby earning additional Rs.3000/- per month. Such recitals are not free from doubt as the author of certificate was not a competent person to issue such a certificate. Furthermore, he was not produced as a witness in the case but looking to the evidence that has come on record and the nature of duties undertaken by the deceased moderate assessment of his income at Rs.75 per day can be conveniently presumed. The learned Tribunal was therefore required to atleast assess the monthly income of deceased at Rs.2250 per month for determining just compensation. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard
[8]
to loss of income is not correct and the appellants are entitled for enhancement of amount under this head.
Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 has decided the ratio in respect of loss of income and has held:
30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra , the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be onethird (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
39. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie this Court noticed that in respect of claims under Section 166 of the MV Act, the highest multiplier applicable was 18 and that the said multiplier should be applied to the age group of 21 to 25 years (commencement of normal productive years) and the lowest multiplier would be in respect of persons in the age group of 60 to 70 years (normal retiring age). This was reiterated in T.N. State Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and U.P. SRTC v. Krishna Bala .
In the facts and circumstances of instant case and, looking to the occupation of the deceased, to meet the ends of justice, it is just and proper to presume monthly income of deceased as Rs.2250/- and after adding atleast 30% hike for the loss of future income, his monthly
[9]
income is taken as Rs.2925/-. Looking to the dependency of two incumbents, after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the amount of compensation under the head loss of income is to be worked out. Therefore, considering the age of the deceased, who was 22 years old at the time of accident, by applying the multiplier of 18, the “loss of dependency” is re-determined and reassessed as under:-
Rs.1950 X 12 X 18 = Rs.4,21,200/-
As regards compensation awarded under other heads, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the amount of compensation, which requires no interference by this Court.
Thus, in totality, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head “loss of income” is enhanced by Rs.2,34,000/- to make it Rs.4,21,200/- which was originally assessed and awarded by the learned Tribunal as Rs.1,87,200/-.
In above view of the matter, the overall reassessment and determination of compensation can be tabulated as under:
[10]
| Heads | Amount awarded by Tribunal |
Amount enhanced |
Total entitled Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss of dependency |
1,87,200/- | 2,34,000/- | 4,21,200/- |
| Loss of Love and Affection |
25,000/- | Nil | 25,000/- |
| For to & fro journey to Jaitaran Hospital |
1,000/- | Nil | 1,000/- |
| Funeral Expenses | 2,000/- | Nil | 2,000/- |
| Railway fair for relatives |
2,400/- | Nil | 2,400/- |
| Total | 2,17,600/- | 2,34,000/- | 4,51,600/- |
The net result of the above discussion is that this appeal is partly allowed and the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant-claimants is enhanced by Rs.2,34,000/- and they are declared entitled for the enhanced compensation for which the respondents are held liable in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. It is made clear that the enhanced amount shall also carry interest @9% from the date of filing of claim petition till realization and the amount so deposited shall be disbursed to the appellants in proportionate to their entitlement as per the award of the learned Tribunal.
Costs are made easy.
[11]
(P.K. LOHRA), J.
arora /
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the motor accident claims tribunal erred in assessing the quantum of compensation awarded to the dependants of the deceased.
Whether the monthly income and multiplier applied by the tribunal were sufficient to determine just compensation.
Whether the compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency requires enhancement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs. Golendra Moshahari & Ors.Referred¶31
Union of India Vs. Golendra Moshahari & Ors. (2005 ACJ 263)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanchan Devi & Anr.Referred¶31
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanchan Devi & Anr. (2007 ACJ 1727)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jamna Devi & Ors.Referred¶31
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jamna Devi & Ors. (2006 ACJ 1602)
Sarla Verma v. DTCExplained¶41
Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rita Devi & Ors.
Mool Singh & Others
P.K. LOHRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
