Partly allowed

Shivkaran Saini and Ors. v. Sanwar Mal and Ors.

Rajasthan HC25 Jan 2019CMA/1302/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal for enhancement of compensation. It modified the Tribunal's award by applying a 50% addition for future prospects and a multiplier of 17 based on the deceased's age, increasing the total compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is partly allowed; the compensation amount is enhanced to Rs. 12,64,624/-; remaining award remains same. Insurance company ordered to pay enhanced amount with interest and invest it.

Shivkaran Saini and Ors. Vs Sanwar Mal and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT

¶2

JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1302/2011

¶4

Shivkaran Saini S/o Shri Nadu Ram Saini, aged about 32 years.

¶5

Master Paras Saini S/o Shri Shivkaran Saini, aged about 12 years.

¶6

Udaiveer Saini S/o Shri Shivkaran Saini, aged about 5 years. No.2 &3 being minor are through their natural guardian and

¶7

¶8

Versus

¶9

al S/o Shri Prabhati Lal, R/o Dhani ~hojya%ali, Tan

¶10

This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.04.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the tribunal'), whereby, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,92,176/as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the tribunal committed an error in awarding lesser compensation. The tribunal seriously erred in not awarding any amount towards future prospects of the deceased. The tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 12. As the age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of accident, therefore, multiplier of 17 should have been applied by the tribunal.

¶12

\ t h ? .-J &' :* f On therq,tHer;khand, learned cofupsel for the respondent g-,_ .. - 8 <y'*+ ,c4 k" j- *, No.3-insura:nc+company has o'pposed the appeal. :!,-, T\ " Tc;, 0 c: <<. ,- %"4i'riJ

¶13

. ..-- ., 'I have considered the rival submissions matle2.b~ the -2 t,.v

¶14

learned counsel for the parties-,and have perused the material available on record.

¶15

The claim-petition was filed by the appellants asking for compensation on acco Devi in a motor vehicle accident which occurre he tribunal assessed the, income of the decease month i.e 70,2721-. per annum, which has not d 1 the deceased was age@abpy&\i~@ye@- at the time of accident and she was in a permanent job, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in ati ion& Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in AIR2017 SC 5157, an addition of 50% is to be added towards future prospect of the) deceased, which comes to Rs.35,136/-. Thus, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,05,408/- (70,272+35,136). Keeping in view the number of dependents, one third of the said income was rightly deducted by the tribunal towards personal expenses of the

¶16

deceased. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 17 would be applied to work out the dependency of the claimants. In this way, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 11,94,624/(1,05,4082/317). The claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs.70,000/towards conventional heads. Thus, the total amount of compensation receivable by the claimants comes to Rs. 12,64,624/(1 1,94,624+70,000). 73 * 4q xi 41 aN ir4jt- Pr ~p$, Accordiln'gly; $this appeal IS pa't$ly/' allowed. Impugned +% d $?- -=+ %. r-% award dated'~l~~04.2007 ,> is modified to the extent that the -<conipensatlon amount receivable by the claimants is .dy!i "ye., Rs.12,64,624/instead of Rs.5,92,176/as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining award shall be the same. The Insuranc e enhanced amount 1 along. with the interes the date of filing of the claim petition t the Tribunal within a period of two months fro;@ today f1fjis :ordered that the share of 'iSi "fa il. P jj the enhanced amount of: tl$d <ompensation shall be invested in $&$$ &% p? at . i,.18$ $ 7. i. fixed deposit with a natio,nai'/sed bank in'itially for a period of 2 years and the inter tipshall be paid to the claimants on monthly basis. ,

Shivkaran Saini and Ors. v. Sanwar Mal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivkaran Saini and Ors. v. Sanwar Mal 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

Ram Niwas S/O Bansidhar Vs Inderpal S/O Thawar Singh

Tanishka Sharma and Anr. Vs Smt Premlata Sharma

Hajari Lal and Ors. Vs Shyoji Ram and Ors.

N I C Vs Madho Devi

Ramesh Chand Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

M/S Bhagwati Lal Gopal Das Vs Gajanad