Dismissed

Rajendra Sharma S/O Nandkishore Sharma (Husband of Deceased) v. Ramotar Alias Ramavtar Dhakad S/O Beerbal

Rajasthan HC17 Feb 2020CMA/134/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by claimants seeking enhanced compensation for the death of Kalpana Sharma in a motor vehicle accident. The bench held that despite unproven claims for higher income and a different multiplier, the Tribunal's award was neither erroneous nor required modification.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Award dated 08.11.2019 remains undisrupted as no grounds for enhancement were established.

Rajendra Sharma S/O Nandkishore Sharma (Husband of… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 134/2020

¶3

Rajendra Sharma S/o Nandkishore Sharma (Husband Of Deceased), Aged About 38 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Lakhera Mohalla, Malan Ki Gali, Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶4

Tanmay Sharma S/o Rajendra Sharma (Son Of Deceased), Aged About 7 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Father Appellant No. 1 Rajendra Sharma. B/c Brahmin, R/o Lakhera Mohalla, Malan Ki Gali, Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶5

Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Nandkishore (Mother In Law Of Deceased), Aged About 68 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Lakhera Mohalla, Malan Ki Gali, Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ramotar Alias Ramavtar Dhakad S/o Beerbal, R/o House No. 4K 457, Shivaji Park Alwar (Rajasthan) Driver Of Vehicle Tanker No. RJ 32 GB 4633

¶9

M/s Alwar Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited, Near Bhawani Top Chauraha, Jaipur Road, Alwar (Rajasthan) Owner Of Vehicle Tanker No. RJ 32 GB 4633

¶10

The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office At Near Bijli Ghar Chauraha, Alwar (Rajasthan) Insurer Of Vehicle Tanker No. RJ 32 GB 4633 Insurance Period Date 18.01.2016 To 17.01.2017

¶11

----Respondents/Non-claimants

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) :

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶14

Judgment

¶15

17/02/2020

¶16

This appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) for enhancement of

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CMA-134/2020]

¶19

compensation against the judgment and award dated 08.11.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.11,37,336/as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶20

Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding lesser compensation. Income of the deceased was taken on the lower side by the Tribunal, whereas deceased Kalpana Sharma used to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month from tailoring work. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 17, whereas at the time of accident, the deceased was 26 years of age, therefore, instead of 17, the multiplier of 18 should have been applied. On this count, the impugned award is liable to be modified and the amount of compensation is required to be enhanced.

¶21

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

¶22

The claim-petition was filed by the claimants seeking compensation on account of death of Kalpana Sharma in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 09.10.2016. Although, the case of the claimants was that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of accident. But to prove the same, no documentary evidence was produced by the claimants. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5500/per month, whereas it was to be taken at Rs.5,226/- per month in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State Government at the relevant time. The income of the deceased is, therefore, to be

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CMA-134/2020]

¶25

assessed at Rs.62,712/- per annum to work out the compensation. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of accident. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National 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.25,085/-. Thus, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.87,797/-(62712+25085). Keeping in view the number of dependents, i.e. three, one third of the said income was rightly deducted by the Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 17 was rightly applied by the Tribunal. In this way, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.9,95,033/- (87797x2/3x17). The claimants would be further entitled a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the total amount of compensation receivable by the claimants comes to Rs.10,65,033/(995033+70000).

¶26

The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.11,37,336/-. Therefore, no ground is made out to enhance the amount of compensation.

¶27

Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶28

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶29

Mohit24

Rajendra Sharma S/O Nandkishore Sharma (Husband of Deceased) v. Ramotar Alias Ramavtar Dhakad S/O Beerbal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Sharma S/O Nandkishore Sharma (Husband of Deceased) v. Ramotar Alias Ramavtar Dhakad S/O Beerbal

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

Murari Lal Vs Shyam and Ors.

Shyam Lal Vs Murari Lal

Sumer Mal Phophalia S/O Late Sh. Chuttan Lal Phophalia Vs Banwari Lal Gupta S/O Sh. Chitarmal Ji

Smt. Mintu Devi W/O Late Mahendra Kumar Vs Madan Lal S/O Manlaram

Bharirath Mal Jangid S/O Shri Bhoor Ji Jangid Vs Rameshwar Lal S/O Shri Puranmal

Babu @ Rashid S/O Mohammad Hanif Khan B/C Kayamkhani Vs State of Rajasthan