Allowed

Satish and Anr. v. Om Prakash and Anr.

Rajasthan HC26 Jul 2018CMA/2696/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation for the death of Jiwan. The Court applied Supreme Court guidelines to calculate dependency, added future prospects due to the deceased's age (24), and awarded amounts for loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award is modified to grant total compensation of Rs. 7,62,616/- enhanced from Rs. 4,23,000/-.

Satish and Anr. Vs Om Prakash and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH A?' 3APPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 269612013

¶3

I. Satish S/o Shri Vishamber Dayal, aged 27 years, by caste Khati, R/o Village Mogorra, Tehsil and District Mathura (U.P.). 2. Varun S/o Shri Satish, aged 03 years minor, through his father satish, by caste !<hati, R/o Village Magorra, Tehsil and District Mathura (U.P.) I " *" 8" .A,." ,..! .PO @,. %%a?@ *,& p ----Ap,ellant/Claimants. s 1 & &*c~~ .e<fl.+ Versus iqq, 1.1 ,s;jn-x -' .e 2 A. +< 1. Om Pajkakash S/o Premchand, R/o Tilak Nagar, ~kkular Road, *%$PY @$iw-\ &&y %P'$,,- X'a ~hara@~ir(wner and Driver Motor Cycle No. W-SF-O~~Z).

¶4

The National Insurance Company Ltd., through Manager .: National Insurance $dmpany Lid.! Branch Officer New Mandi $$&q%c "+&$- 4. i Station Road, ~harat$ir, Its Regional Office Jaipur.

¶5

: For Appeilant(s) Mr. Kartar Singh Fauzdar Adv. For Res,pondent No.2 : Ms. Sweety Mishra Adv.

¶6

Appellants have filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 12.02.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

¶7

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

¶8

It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Companv Lirniked Versus Pranav Sethi and others AIR 2017 (SC) 4973, reads as under:-

¶9

'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 La1 Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction to wards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down:-

¶10

"30. Thoug$ inas4@ p.7e$#thte deduction to be maCde(;@wal;ds pe~s.sona$d living expen%&/s calculated on the bssimf "%w, - units indroqbed in Trilo k Chandra4, the geg era1 .A& c'tice is to apply standardised dedli~tidns. \ ving considered several subseq'@t"3

¶11

_ecisions of this 37 (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 3%*&_

¶12

Court, we are of the view that where the*

¶13

number of

¶14

31. Where th bachelor and the claimants follows a di

¶15

the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and ~lvill 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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. "

¶18

"44. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the,C~~u%skhBlRb'e ,guided by Step 2 that ,$$ %& ,g%+ g ","" jf jj ,![ 2: ; 3 finds place&@ #+..', D% Paraflaph %. 19 of Sa!rla-.Perma read with .1-"r paragraph42 of the said judgment ~6r th.e sake of y$**# [email protected]&eness, paragraph 42 is extracted &16w A& : u. *- . We therefore hold that the multiplier+^ used should be as m.entioned in ~olum'nqq of the table above (prepared by applying

¶19

human attitu r pattern of life, e.t-c., an a lished 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.

¶20

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

¶21

(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

¶22

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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 500/0- af actual salary to the in com e r? of pp @th% k.. jadceas.ed [fb wards future %..g prospeCt$,. %wRere the deceasedi--gad a &&y, <*$. _perm.ament job and was below the_ **_4_** 'yw _%ge9,f_ **_x4/_** _4% 40 [email protected], should be made. The addition s ould_ v. _-2%-_ pw% ,. &; . . . **_:be_** ?' **_30%,_** _if the age of the deceased 4_ :. _*between_ s ' _40 to 50 years. In case the deceased> was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the_

¶25

deceased was

¶26

ars should be ome means

¶27

(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the %+P q-w * c deduction fot3ger$onal and Iiying expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

¶28

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

¶29

(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the mult~$lier.

¶30

(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be

¶31

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."

¶32

Appellants ha.d filed the' claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of death of Jiwan in the motor vehicle accident, which had occurred

¶33

Deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident. , .Ti g zi 3. Hence, appropri&tp81tplier to work out the;dependency of the &@3 "' ,+.-=- Z appellants &o0u:l:d be '18'. <. _*\a_ f.' ",j** w + * ,(,$$, ,.~l"'., ,g jniobgh, %&"* it was th,e case o,f the appellants that thie dteceased 2. a& s was earning Rs.6,000/per month, but appellants had failed to lead any doumentary~~evidrnce with regard to the income of the @s XW'. 8: deceased. Hence, th,e$:incorne $We of the deceased was liable to be F $. 2 ,z ta,ken as Rs.3,510/pgr month in view of the minimum wages %??*%, fixed by the State at th$,re.l@vant time.

¶34

Appell.ants are the husbanci and minor child of the deceased. Hence, l/Yd out of the incorrie of the deceased is liable to be .(.. deducted towards her$&-sonal bas , expehses.

¶35

Thus, the depen$&c.y of the appellants comes to Rs.2,340 X 12 X 18 = Rs.5,05,440/-. -?. Appeliants would be further e'ntitled to receive an addition of 40°h of the said an-~ount towards loss of future prospects of the deceased and the said amount comes to Rs.2,02,176/-. Appellants would be further entitled to receive ,. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consol-tiurn and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶36

Thus, total amount of compensation liable to be received by the appellants comes to R,s.5',05,440 -i- Rs.2,02,176 + Rs.40,000

¶37

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 12.02.2013 is modified to the extent that the appellants would be entitled to receive Rs. 7,62,616/- by way of compensation instead of Rs. 4,23,000/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 i-n Fixed Deposit Receipts for a period of three years accrued on the db,p&it shall be paid f,&$# <A &$ District Lfreg&l- Services * qJ appellants shall' % ,& invest the amount in Fixed Depqsit qeseipts in the name of the fl$%d: > & $3 appellants in some N&j~@[email protected] Bank.. ?he ~cretary District Legal '. .. ,+! 7: s . ~?%.SJ &?P %TZ i! .$. I" 48 i? * 9 :' s* .. .s ii4&&* *%Yk3 Services Authority, B@3~~~g,shallfurthe(;apprise .+,7fl+z-2:p ... 4 - n @ the appellants &P&T~s~~~ * c g e;rV ... c, with regard to the am~i@@$$vhich ti& b&n granted to them by $&$$!J, way of enhancement a e fact. that, the enhanced amount of 3, 1 ?; * i r'l b*\ $ d$ k, compensation shall be i d 'in ~~teb Deposit Receipts in some * ,.., ii t, C Nationalized Bank for

¶38

%r#j$r*:'<%+.o**%%, **%g;#*_ , E , P 1 ss --&!!V
!.$dgq?;$:$f& ?.,, .,&,$>".- * J -. 4; P.$. D" l., 9 <.#; f ,.+..&w
S.Kumawat/D-28 <+; q.~~.sf$: ,xpy9e $2 xha <.+ T ;;x3">&g ,>

Satish and Anr. v. Om Prakash and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish and Anr. v. Om Prakash and Anr.

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

Smt Shanti Devi and Ors. Vs Bharat Kumar and Anr.

Girdharilal and Ors. Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Smt Shanti Devi and Ors. Vs Bharat Kumar and Anr.

Smt Rajiya Beebee and Ors. Vs Krishan and Ors.

Paras Kumar Uaidya Vs Mahesh Kumar and Ors.

Smt Santi Devi Meena and Ors. Vs Sitaram Kharwal and Ors.