Allowed

Smt Leela Devi and Ors. v. Mohd Yunus and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Jul 2018CMA/1163/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the High Court allowed an appeal modifying the Tribunal's award due to errors in calculating personal expenses, applying the wrong multiplier, and insufficient future prospects, enhancing the compensation awarded to the claimants.

What did the court decide?

Award was modified; total compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,61,592/- from Rs. 2,61,592/-. Enhanced amount invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts.

Smt Leela Devi and Ors. Vs Mohd… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1163/2005

¶3

Smt. Leela Devi W/o Mahendra Singh, R/o Village Daulatpura, Daulatpura Singa, Beawar, Presently Residing At Raas Distt. Pali.

¶4

Smt. Asha Devi W/o Ranjeet Singh, R/o Village Daulatpura, Daulatpura Singa, Beawar, Presently Residing At Raas Distt. Pali. -,- %. Daulatpura, At Raas Neetu D/o Late Ma or Through Their Natural Guardi la Devi, Appellan, R/o Beawar, Presently Shiv S/o Late r Through Their Natural Guardi la Devi, Appellant, R/o Beawar, Presentl vy Residing At Raas Seema D/o inor Through Their Natural Guar Devi, Appellan , R/o a, Beawar, Presently j: ; . "> . Residing At Raas. DisttiPali. . . .. .;%,

¶5

Ravi S/o Late Mahendra Singh Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Leela Devi, P,ppellant , R/o Village Daulatpura, Daulatpura Singa, Beawar, Presently Residing At Raas Distt. Pali.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mohammad Yunus S/o Hamicl Khan, R/o V-Kherla, Tehsil Naah, Distt. Gurgaon. Driver And Owner Of The Vehicle No. Hr-5513162

¶8

National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Regional Manager, Regional Office At 10, Narain Singh Road, Jaipur.

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.P. Gupta Adv. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Bharti Trivedi Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judament

¶11

20/07/2018

¶12

earned counsel for the appellant has submitted that keeping in view the number s erred in deducting 1/3rd out of the in owards his personal

¶13

s erred in deducting owards his personal mitted that he is not reby, the income of the nth. However, Tribunal has towards loss of future is arguments, learned f the Hon'ble Supreme wherein it was held as

¶14

expenses. Learned co challenging the finding deceased was taken as Rs failed to award the co prospects of the dec counsel has placed re1 Court in

¶15

under: -

¶16

'39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna La/ lain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down:-

¶17

"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 Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this 37 (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 31 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction to wards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of

¶18

more on

¶19

alone will be evidence to th$,a will not bp#d dent on the

¶20

pa is survived by parents an nb&$$gx+ 0 th er would be conside depe@f&nt, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger nonearning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. "

¶21

"44. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims

¶22

tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, paragraph 42 is extracted below : -

¶23

"42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-I 7 for 26 to 30

¶24

"59. Taking in to cons&$f@h& ""4. n the cumulative factors, namely, passage $1^$ij&Y& A,, ,& anging society, !LLV* -fg .F?* _q_ , price index, the f&#RI:~v/a~~,'pa = 2 ,@ .LX..A~&~~ ttern 0 f life, gblished income of the deceased cts and where the deceased was addition of 25% where the decea the age of 40 to 50 years would b

¶25

X X X "61. In view of d bs, we proceed to record our co

¶26

to refer the -x PW~+, .' _matter to a dalaij-e~+g~B;c_ ?La;w n-, 1 'was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

¶27

(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.

¶28

(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the

¶29

income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% if the age of the deceased was 48 between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

¶30

(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of

¶31

computation. The ed income means

¶32

Verma which rla Verma read

¶33

heads, na te, loss of consortium es should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of IO0/o in every three years ."

¶34

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the appeal. Appellants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of death of Mahendra Singh in the motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on 20.03.2000,

¶35

Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.1.7681- per month as the deceased was working as a tailor. Deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier to work out the dependency of the claimants would be '17'.

¶36

Claimants were the widow, parents and minor children of the deceased. Keeping in view the relationship of the claimants with the

¶37

the said amount towa cts of the deceased and the said amoun Appellants would be entitled to receive of consortium and

¶38

Rs. 15,000/- towards fu

¶39

ThusI total amoun the claimants comes to Rs.15,000 = Rs. 4/33!

¶40

liable to be received by 201 + Rs.40,000 +

¶41

Accordingly, this pugned award dated 27.01.2005 is modifie ppellants would be entitled to receive R ompensation instead of Rs. 2,61,592/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The remaining terms and conditions of the award shall remain unchanged. It is further ordered that the share of enhanced amount of compensation of the appellants be invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts with some Nationalized Bank, initially for a period of three years and the interest accrued on the deposit shall be paid to them on monthly basis. Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ajmer in the interest of the claimants shall invest the amount in Fixed Deposit

¶42

Receipts in the name of the claimants in some Nationalized Bank. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ajmer, shall further apprise the claimants with regard to the amount which has been granted to them by way of enhancement and the fact that the enhanced amount of compensation shall be invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts in some Nationalized Bank for their benefit.

Smt Leela Devi and Ors. v. Mohd Yunus and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Leela Devi and Ors. v. Mohd Yunus and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Asha Devi and Others

Smt Geeta Devi and Ors. Vs Girdhari and Ors.

Shanti Lal Vs Shalendra Singh

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Prakash Kanwar

Ramesh Vs Bahadur Singh and Ors.

Ramjilal S/O Sukhchand Vs Ganesh S/O Nanda