High Court allowed an appeal to enhance motor accident compensation. Court recalculated award based on proven income of Rs. 4,000, corrected age multiplier to 17, and included future prospects as per Pranay Sethi judgment, directing enhanced payment.
Appellants entitled to enhanced amount of Rs. 4,60,800/- plus interest at 6% per annum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1453/2013
Leela Ben And Ors.
----Appellant
Versus
Shri Teja Ram And Ors.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Kothari Mr. Rajesh Shah
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
22/08/2019
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants for enhancement of the amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Session Judge), Aburoad, District Sirohi (Raj.) vide Award dated 06/06/2013 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 89/2010.
The present appellants preferred a claim petition on various grounds before the learned tribunal for grant of compensation. The reply was filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations in the claim petition. Thereafter, on completion of the pleadings the learned Tribunal framed the issues.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal decided the claim petition of the appellants and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,66,000/- in favour of the appellants and directed the respondents to pay an interest @ 6% per annum on the amount awarded.
(2 of 5)
[CMA-1453/2013]
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that despite the claimants have brought on record the evidence to the effect that the deceased was working as Khalasi and was getting Rs.4,000/per month and Rs.50 per day as daily allowance, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/and, therefore, the Tribunal has erred while computing the award by taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. Counsel further submits that in the postmortem report, the age of the deceased was stated to be 30 years. Even then, the Tribunal has considered the age between 31-35 years and applied the multiplier of 16. He, therefore, submits that since the age of the deceased was 30 years, the multiplier of 17 should have been applied.
Counsel further submits that the learned tribunal has not considered the future prospects in the present case and therefore, no amount in the head of future prospects has been awarded. He, therefore, prays that the same is required to be computed in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.L.P. (Civil) Case No. 25590/2014 ( National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors.) reported in 2017/ACJ/2700, 2017(4)J.L.J.R. 275, 2017(4)P.L.J.R. 261.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company submits that since no conclusive proof was brought on record for the determination of the monthly income, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/per month as per the minimum wages rates notified by the Labour Department. He further submits that since the age of the
(3 of 5) [CMA-1453/2013]
deceased was above 30 years, therefore, Tribunal has rightly concluded that the deceased will fall in the bracket of 31-35 and the multiplier of 16 has rightly been applied. On the aspect of future prospects, learned counsel fairly admits that the same has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while computing the award.
I have considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the relevant material available on record.
In the statement of AW.1 Leelaben who is the wife of the deceased, it has categorically come on record that deceased was working as Khalasi and was getting Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs. 50 as daily allowance. The Insurance Company has not rebutted the same by any contrary evidence. Therefore, I am of the view that it will be just and proper to consider Rs. 4,000/- per month as the income of the deceased as he was working as Khalasi .
Since it has been categorically stated in the postmortem report that age of the deceased was 30 years and the claimant in their claim petition has stated that the age of deceased was 29 years. Therefore, the age of the deceased is required to be assessed as 30 years and the multiplier of 17 should be applied.
There is no dispute as far as the awarding of future prospects in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & ors (supra), therefore, the same is also required to be taken into consideration while computing the award.
Taking into consideration the above factors, the compensation in the present case is computed as under :-
(4 of 5) [CMA-1453/2013]
For future 40% of Rs.4000/- Rs. 1600/-
prospects :-
(Income of
deceased)
Rs. 4000/- + Rs. 1600/- Rs. 5600/-
Amount to be deducted as Rs. 5600/- / 1/4th =
spent on himself. Rs. 1400/-
Dependence Amount Rs. 5600 – Rs. 1400 =
Rs. 4200/-
The age of deceased was 30 years therefore, a multiplier of
17 will be used.
| (I) | Compensation due to death 4200 x 12 x 17 |
Rs. | 8,56,800/- |
|---|---|---|---|
| (II) | Loss of Consortium | Rs. | 40,000/- |
| (III) | For the Loss of Estate | Rs. | 15,000/- |
| (IV) | Funeral Expenses | Rs. | 15,000 /- |
| **Total ** | Rs. | 9,26,800 /- | |
| Amount awarded by the Tribunal vide award dated 06/06/2013Less |
Rs. | 4,66,000/- | |
| Enhanced amount | Rs. | 4,60,800/- |
Consequently, in view of the calculation made above, the appellants-claimants are entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs. 4,60,800/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the learned tribunal vide its Award dated 06/06/2013. The appellants are also entitled to an interest @ 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 21/08/2010. The
(5 of 5)
[CMA-1453/2013]
enhanced amount be paid with an interest @ 6% per annum within a period of eight weeks from today.
The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The stay application as well as other pending application, if any also stand disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
88-SanjayS/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the income of the deceased should be enhanced from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 4,000 per month based on witness testimony.
Whether the correct multiplier for compensation calculation should be 17 instead of 16 given the deceased was 30 years old.
Whether future prospects should be included in the compensation award under Supreme Court guidelines.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors.Applied¶19
S.L.P. (Civil) Case No. 25590/2014 (National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors.) reported in 2017/ACJ/2700, 2017(4)J.L.J.R. 275, 2017(4)P.L.J.R.
Pranay Sethi & OrsApplied¶26
Pranay Sethi & ors (supra)
Leela Ben And Ors.
Shri Teja Ram And Ors.
Vinit Kumar Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
