Partly allowed

Anjana Devi Andors v. Sunil Kumar and Anr.

Rajasthan HC31 Jan 2019CMA/2206/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the claimants' appeal and partly allowed the RSRTC's appeal. The Court held the deceased's income was incorrectly assessed without documentary proof, ordered a reduction in the future prospects percentage from 50% to 40% following Supreme Court precedent, and recalculated the total compensation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified; total compensation reduced to Rs. 12,06,268/- from Rs. 12,27,160/-; appellants' appeal dismissed, respondents' appeal partly allowed.

Anjana Devi Andors Vs Sunil Kumar and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2206/2015

¶3

Anjana Devi W/o Late Shri Dinesh Kumar, aged about 26 years,

¶4

Kanishka @ Baby D/o Late Shri Dinesh Kumar, aged about 7 years,

¶5

Gaurav Kumar S/o Late Shri Dinesh Kumar, aged about 4 years,

¶6

Ramlal S/o Late Shri Birdhi Chand, aged about 58 years,

¶7

Smt. Kaushalya Devi W/o Late Shri Ram Lal, aged about 56 years,

¶8

Appellants No. 2 & 3 Minor, Through Their Mother & natural Guardian Smt. Anjana Devi,

¶9

All respondents of village Samod, Naiyo Ka Mohalla, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶10

----Claimants/Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Sunil Kumar S/o Ummed Singh, By Caste Jat, R/o Arya Nagar, Dhincholi, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu Raj. At Present Under The Employment Of Through Chief Manager, Khetri, Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation, Khetri Agar, District Jhunjhunu.

¶13

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Corporation Office, Chomu House Jaipur, Through Chairman.

¶14

----Non-Claimants/Respondents

¶15

Connected With

¶16

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1075/2015

¶17

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Corporation Office, Chomu House Jaipur, Through Chairman Represented Through Its Officer Incharge.

¶18

----Non-Claimant/Appellants

¶19

Versus

¶20

Anjana Devi W/o Late Shri Dinesh Kumar, aged about 25 years,

¶21

Kanishka @ Baby D/o Late Shri Dinesh Kumar, aged about 6 years,

¶22

Gaurav Kumar S/o Late Shri Dinesh Kumar, aged about 3 years,

¶23

(2 of 4)

¶24

[CMA Nos.-2206/2015 & 1075/2015]

¶25

Ramlal S/o Late Shri Birdhi Chand, aged about 57 years, 5. Smt. Kaushalya Devi W/o Late Shri Ram Lal, aged about 55 years,

¶26

Claimant-respondent No. 2 & 3 are being minor, Through Their natural Guardian and mother Smt. Anjana Devi w/o Late Shri Dinesh Kumar,

¶27

All R/o village Samod, Naiyo Ka Mohalla, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶28

Sunil Kumar S/o Ummed Singh, By Caste Jat, R/o Arya Nagar, Dhincholi, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu Raj. At Present Under The Employment Of Through Chief Manager, Khetri, Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation, Khetri Agar, District Jhunjhunu.

¶29

For claimants : Mr. Kamal Gupta For RSRTC : Mr. Virendra Agarwal

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶31

Order

¶32

31/01/2019

¶33

Aforesaid both the appeals are filed against the judgment and award dated 24.01.2015 passed by the Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’), whereby, the trial court awarded a sum of Rs.12,27,160/- as compensation along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶34

Since both the appeals are directed against the same judgment and award, therefore, they are being decided together.

¶35

Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that

¶36

the trial court committed an error in awarding lesser compensation. The deceased was a hair dresser and his monthly income was Rs.10,000/- per month. The same was duly proved by

¶37

(3 of 4) [CMA Nos.-2206/2015 & 1075/2015]

¶38

the claimants. The tribunal also erred in deducting 1/3rd instead of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased.

¶39

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short “RSRTC”) has submitted that the tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.5010/- per month without any basis. At the relevant time, minimum wages fixed by the State Government were Rs.4342/- per month for a skilled labourer. The tribunal also erred in awarding 50% instead of 40% towards future prospects of the deceased.

¶40

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶41

The claim-petition was filed by the claimants seeking compensation on account of death of Dinesh Kumar in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 09.06.2012. Although, it was the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. But to prove the same, no cogent or documentary evidence was produced by the claimants to prove the same. Thus, the tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,010/- per month on the basis of prevalent rate of minimum wages fixed by the State Government for a skilled labourer and keeping in view the fact that the deceased was doing the work of barber. Hence, the income of the deceased is to be assessed as Rs.5,010/- per month i.e. Rs.60,120/- per annum. The tribunal wrongly added 50% instead of 40% of the said income towards future prospects of the deceased. As the age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of accident, therefore, in

¶42

(4 of 4)

¶43

[CMA Nos.-2206/2015 & 1075/2015]

¶44

view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National

¶45

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, an addition of 40% is to be added towards future prospect of the deceased, which comes to Rs.20,842/-. Thus, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.84,168/- (60120+24048). Keeping in view the number of dependents i.e. four, one fourth of the said income is to be deducted from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 18 would be applied to work out the dependency of the claimants. In this way, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.11,36,268/(84164x3/4x18). The claimants would be further entitled to Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the total amount of compensation receivable by the claimants comes to Rs.12,06,268/-(1136268+70,000).

¶46

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellantsclaimants is dismissed and the appeal filed by the RSRTC is partly allowed and consequently, impugned award dated 24.01.2015 is modified to the extent that the compensation amount receivable by the claimants is Rs.12,06,268/- instead of Rs.12,27,160/- as awarded by the trial court. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall be the same.

¶47

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶48

Mohit49-50

Anjana Devi Andors v. Sunil Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjana Devi Andors v. Sunil Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shanti Devi and Others Vs Ram Prasad Jangid and Others

Smt Rekha and Ors. Vs Kedar Narayan

Smt Bimla Devi and Anr. Vs Nand Kishore and Ors.

R S R T C through Chairman/O I C Vs Anjana Devi and Others

Harnarayan Vs Bhuvnesh and Others

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Rashmi and Others