Allowed

Smt Geeta Devi and Ors. v. Girdhari and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Jul 2018CMA/230/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the appeal challenging the compensation award for a student deceased in a motor accident. The court modified the award by applying a multiplier of 18, deducting 50% for personal expenses, and adding 40% for future prospects, enhancing the total compensation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned award modified to Rs. 7,57,996 by applying multiplier of 18, deducting 50% for personal expenses, and adding 40% for future prospects.

Smt Geeta Devi and Ors. Vs Girdhari and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

(1 of 6)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 230/2018

¶4

Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Shri Ramkaran, B/c Balai, R/o Village Disnau, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar Rajathan

¶5

Damodar S/o Shri Ramkaran, R/o Village Disnau, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar Rajathan

¶6

Ravi Prakash S/o Shri Ramkaran, B/c Balai, R/o Village Disnau, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar Rajathan

¶7

Hemant S/o Shri Ramkaran, B/c Balai, R/o Village Disnau, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar Rajathan

¶8

----Appellants/Claimants Versus

¶9

Girdhari S/o Shri Mohan Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Dhod Police Station Losal, District Sikar Rajasthan.vehicle Driver Tanker No. RJ-23-G-1640

¶10

Smt. Sunita Shekhawat W/o Shri Hargovind Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o G-682, Gandhi Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Presently Residing At Plot No. 311 Guru Jambeshwar Nagar-A-Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan. Registered Owner Tanker No. RJ-23-G-1640

¶11

The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Regional Branch, Jalan Bhawan, Court Road, Jaipur Insurance Company Of Tanker No. RJ-23-G-1640

¶12

Ramkaran S/o Late Shri Chunaram, B/c Balai, R/o Village Disnau, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar Rajasthan

¶13

----Respondents/Non-Claimants

¶14

For Appellants : Mr. Meet Kumar Sharma

¶15

For Respondents : Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Vijay

¶16

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶17

Order

¶18

19/07/2018

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that

¶20

the service qua respondent no.4 for the purposes of this appeal, be dispensed with.

¶21

(2 of 6 )

¶22

Ordered accordingly.

¶23

Appellants have filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 19.09.2017 passed by the Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal was on a lower side. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and others AIR 2017 (SC) 4973 , wherein, it was held as under:-

¶25

“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 Lal Jain. 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:-

¶26

“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 towards 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 dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

¶27

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living

¶28

(3 of 6 )

¶29

expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

¶30

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, 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 non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to onethird and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”

¶31

x x x x

¶32

¶33

“ 44. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims 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 :-

¶34

“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-17 for 26 to 30 years, M16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”

¶35

x x x x

¶36

¶37

“59.Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the

¶38

(4 of 6 )

¶39

established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.

¶40

x x x x x

¶41

“61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-

¶42

(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it 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.

¶43

(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.

¶44

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

¶45

(iv) In case the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

¶46

(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

¶47

(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that

¶48

(5 of 6 )

¶49

judgment.

¶50

(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

¶51

(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”

¶52

Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has opposed the appeal.

¶53

Appellants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor-Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of death of Devendra in the motor-vehicle accident which had occurred on 6.5.2014. As per the postmortem report Exhibit-7, deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of the accident. Hence, multiplier of ‘18’ is liable to be applied to work out the dependency of the claimants. Since, the deceased was a student at the time of the accident, his income is liable to be taken as per minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time to work out the dependency of the claimants. Thus, income of the deceased is taken as Rs.4,914/- per month at the time of the accident.

¶54

Claimants are the mother and brothers of the deceased. Hence, half amount of the income of the deceased was liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses.

¶55

Thus, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.2,457/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.5,30,712/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive an addition of 40% of the said amount towards future prospects of the deceased and the

¶56

(6 of 6 )

¶57

said amount comes to Rs.2,12,284/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶58

Thus, the total compensation liable to be received by the appellants comes to Rs.5,30,712/- + Rs.2,12,284/- + Rs.15,000/- = Rs.7,57,996/-.

¶59

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 19.09.2017, is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.7,57,996/- by way of compensation instead of Rs.7,28,390/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the impugned

¶60

award shall remain the same.

¶61

(SABINA)J.

¶62

Mohita/40

Smt Geeta Devi and Ors. v. Girdhari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Geeta Devi and Ors. v. Girdhari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Omkanwar and Ors. Vs Babusingh and Ors.

Rajesh Vs Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

Geeta Devi Vs Lalchand Meena and Ors.

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

Shanti Lal Vs Shalendra Singh

Rajendra Kumar Vs Ram Kumar