Allowed

Jannatbai and Ors. v. Hussain Khan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2015CMA/827/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the High Court held the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of compensation inadequate. The Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,53,960 by correcting the deceased's income assessment to the statutory minimum wage and factoring in future income prospects, modifying the toll and awarded compensation award.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs.3,53,960 with interest at 9% per annum from date of filing claim; remaining amount to be paid within one month.

Jannatbai and Ors. Vs Hussain Khan and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

[1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

AT JODHPUR

¶4

JUDGMENT

¶5

Jannat Bai & Ors. Vs.

¶6

Hussain Khan & Others S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 827/2003

Date of Judgment:

January 15, 2015.

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA, J.

¶11

Mr. Kailash Trivedi, for the appellants. Mr. Anil Kaushik, for the respondents.

¶12

BY THE COURT:

¶13

The present appeal is preferred against the award dated 5^th December, 2002 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bail, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation for a sum of Rs. 2,43,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the appellant-claimants from the date of filing of claim petition.

¶14

The factual scenario in nutshell is as follows:

¶15

[2]

¶16

On 4^th August, 1999 at about 12 in the day, claimant Abdul Khan alongwith his brother Rasool Khan proceeded on foot for Balwana and at about 1 PM reached near Udkiya Farm. Rasool Khan was ahead of him and he was behind him. At that time, Truck No.RJ-21-G-256 driven by its driver Hussain Khan in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit him, as a result of which Rasool Khan fell at some distance and sustained injuries. He received injuries on his head, leg and hands as such was taken to Hospital, however, he breathed his last at 2:20 PM. First Information Report of the accident bearing No.243/99 for the offence under Section 279, 304A IPC was lodged at Police Station Sumerpur and after investigation challan was filed against the driver of offending truck in the Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶17

A claim petition was filed under Section 140 read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 23^rd August, 1999 by mother and other kith & kins of the deceased, appellants herein, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.15,01,000/- under various heads.

¶18

The claim petition was contested by respondents No.1 & 2 refuting all the averments

¶19

[3]

¶20

contained in the claim petition. Respondent No.3 insurer also filed its reply before the learned Tribunal and denied the averments made in the claim petition alleging absence of evidence, knowledge and information and stating that the compensation claimed is highly excessive, denied its liability. The insurer has taken a plea that the claimants are required to prove that the driver of offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and was in employment of owner of the truck as per the terms and conditions of insurance policy. In want of such proofs, claim petition merits rejection.

¶21

Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

¶22

framed three issues for determination. The appellants in support of their case examined appellant Jannat Bai as AW1 and produced 11 documents. On behalf of nonclaimants no evidence was produced in their defence.

¶23

Learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties and examining the matter in its entirety, partly allowed the claim petition of the appellants and allowed them compensation of Rs.2,43,000/- against the total claim of Rs. 15,01,000/-.

¶24

[4]

¶25

The appellants-claimants have set out their

¶26

case in the appeal by urging that amount of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate in 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, the learned Tribunal has not examined the matter objectively 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. Appellants have also sought enhancement of the amount of compensation on the ground that learned Tribunal has not considered future prospects of the enhancement of income of the deceased.

¶27

Mr. Kailash Trivedi, learned Counsel for the appellants has assailed the quantum of compensation awarded in the impugned award and has claimed enhancement in compensation. Learned Counsel contended that the deceased was a young man of 28

¶28

[5]

¶29

years of age and was engaged in doing the marble fitting work and was earning Rs.200 per day at the time of the accident but the learned Tribunal has not properly thrashed out the evidence in right perspective while assessing just compensation. The learned counsel contended that ignoring this, the learned tribunal has erroneously determined the income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month. The second contention of the learned counsel is that the future prospects and increase in earnings of the deceased have not been considered by the learned Tribunal and the Tribunal failed to take into consideration and the fact that value of rupee is denunciating due to present inflatory trends. Learned counsel submits that the learned tribunal has committed grave error in taking the income of deceased at Rs.50 per day only i.e. Rs.1,500 per month and deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The learned counsel has vehemently contended that the tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased was having a child of tender age and building his future career would require reasonable amount. Lastly, learned counsel would contend that the tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection.

¶30

[6]

¶31

Per contra, Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned counsel

¶32

for Respondent No. 3, vehemently traversed the said contentions of the learned counsel for appellants. Mr. Kaushik submitted that the learned tribunal has committed no error in awarding a sum of Rs.2,43,000 along with the interest @ 9% to the appellants. The learned counsel also contended that the impugned award is quite fair, just and reasonable, therefore, requires no interference. The counsel further contended that the tribunal had correctly applied its judicial mind by not allowing any compensation towards future prospects of the deceased in the absence of any cogent evidence to show entitlement to such future prospects of the deceased. Learned counsel, while stoutly defending the impugned award, submits that the compensation awarded is towards higher side, which requires no enhancement.

¶33

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶34

The first contention of counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has erred in correctly assessing the income of the deceased by taking into account the income of deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month,

¶35

[7]

¶36

while in fact the deceased was actually earning Rs.6,000/- per month by doing fitting of marble. Toying the same line of argument, counsel for the insurance company has vehemently urged that since the appellants have failed to give any proof regarding the income of the deceased, therefore, under no circumstance, the income of the deceased could have been considered by the Tribunal at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month.

¶37

In the present case, the appellants have not led any evidence to prove the exact income of the deceased and only evidence which was led before the Tribunal was that the deceased was doing marble fitting work and his monthly earning was Rs.6,000/- out of which he used to contribute for them also. Therefore, in absence of any proof of the income of deceased, the minimum wage of a workman applicable at the time of accident ought to have been taken by the learned Tribunal as income of the deceased. The minimum wages of a workman on the relevant date of accident carrying out such works as per Notification published in Rajasthan Gazette dated on March 30, 2000 issued pursuant to the discussions and deliberations in connection with earlier Notification dated 2^nd June 1999 published in Rajasthan

¶38

[8]

¶39

Gazette, was Rs.60/- per day which amounts to monthly wages of Rs.1800 per month and in the given circumstances, the Tribunal while considering the work done by the deceased of a semi-skilled workman should have atleast taken Rs.60/- per day as wages of the deceased for arriving at a just compensation.

¶40

Therefore, I do find infirmity in the impugned award so far taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- is concerned not being in consonance with the minimum wages prevalent on the relevant date of accident and accordingly the amount of compensation towards loss on income is enhanced and his monthly income is taken as Rs.1800/-.

¶41

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 award atleast 30% hike for the loss of future income and thus his monthly income is taken as Rs.2340/-. Out of the said income 1/3^rd amount, as deceased would have spent upon himself, the deceased would have spent Rs.1560/upon his family.

¶42

Thus, in the backdrop of the facts and

¶43

[9]

¶44

circumstances of the instant case, the amount of compensation under the head of “loss of dependency” is re-determined and reassessed as under:-

¶45

Rs.1560 X 12 X 18 = Rs.3,36,960/-

¶46

In the result, this appeal is allowed and the award dated 5^th December 2002 passed in MACT Case No.150/1999 is modified enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali, while holding the respondents jointly and severally liable for payment of enhanced amount, as

¶47

under :

¶48

*Heads*	*Amount* *awarded* by *Tribunal*	*Amount* *enhanced*	*Total entitled* *compensatio* *n Amount*
Loss of dependency	2,16,000/-	1,20,960/-	3,36,960/-
Funeral Expenses	5,000/-	Nil	5,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection	20,000/-	Nil	20,000/-
Treatment and Transportation Expenses	2,000/-	Nil	2,000/-
Total	2,43,000/-	1,20,960/-	3,53,960/-

¶49

The learned Judge, MACT, is directed to ensure that the respondents pays the entire amount including the enhanced amount of compensation along with

¶50

[10]

¶51

interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization after adjusting the amount already deposited and disbursed to the appellants.

¶52

The learned Judge is further directed to see that the remaining amount of compensation is paid to the appellants within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶53

The registry is directed to immediately send the record back to the concerned Tribunal.

¶54

arora /

Jannatbai and Ors. v. Hussain Khan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jannatbai and Ors. v. Hussain Khan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranchhor Ram Vs Aasu Lal

Mohd. Umar Vs Smt. Ulfat

M/S Ronak Distributors P Ltd. Vs C.T.O.Anti-Evasion Udaipur

Smt.Umari Vs Devi Singh

State and Anr. Vs Sohan Lal

Nirma Vs Ratan Lal and Anr.