High Court allowed additional parental consortium of Rs.80,000/- in a death benefit claim under 1938 Act, relying on Supreme Court judgment while upholding the Tribunal's average income assessment of Rs.5000/min.
Directing the payment of additional Rs.80,000/- for parental consortium.
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. 944/2014
Smt. Sugni Devi And Ors.
----Appellant
Versus
Aasuram And Ors.
----Respondent
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. Prashant Panwar for Mr. Rajesh Panwar |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Himanshu Pareek for Mr. Vipul Singhvi. |
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
02/09/2020
In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.
The unfortunate accident happened on 28.08.2010 when one Krishnaram, who was going to Jodhpur from his village on motor cycle No.RJ-19SE-5063 met with an accident with tanker bearing registration No.RJ-19GB-3687, resulting into his death.
Counsel for the appellant has specifically taken this Court to Para-14 of the impugned order which reads as follows:-
“14& loZizFke erd dh vk;q ds lEcU/k esa fopkj djrs gS rks lqxuh nsoh us vius c;kuksa esa erd dh vk;q 47 o"kZ crkbZ gSA iqfyl dkxtkr izn'kZ&04] 05] 06] esa erd dh vk;q 40 o"kZ mYysf[kr dh xbZ gSA vr% erd dh vk;q 40 ls 47 o"kZ ds chp ekuh tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS D;ksafd bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ izekf.kr lk{; ugha gSA e`rd dh vk; ds lEcU/k esa lqxuh nsoh
(2 of 4)
[CMA-944/2014]
us dFku fd;k gS fd erd Vªd pykus dk dke djrk Fkk 7000@& :- eghus ds feyrs Fks 100@& : jkst dk HkRrk feyrk FkkA vkse izdk'k th dh xkM+h pykrs Fks nks yM+ds o ,d yM+dh gSA yM+dk fookfgr gS yM+dh Hkh fookfgr gSA bl fcUnq ij lk{kh vkse izdk'k us vius l'kiFk c;kuksa esa dFku fd;k gS fd fdlukjke dks og tkurk gS fdlukjke mldh xkM+h la[;k vkj-ts- 19&2 G &1004 ij MªkbZoj Fkk eghus ds 7000@& : nsrk Fkk mldh xkM+h dh R.C. izn'kZ&11 gSA izfrijh{kk esa bl lk{kh dk dFku gS fd fdljkuke dh ukSdjh dh fy[kk i<+h ugha gS bl lq>ko dks vLohdkj fd;k gS fd fdlkukjke mlds ;gka dke ugha djrk gksA fj'rsnkjh ds dkj.k >wBs c;ku ns jgk gksA bl izdkj vk; ds lEcU/k esa izLrqr lk{; dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu djrs gS rks dksbZ izekf.kr lk{; ugha gS] dksbZ fy[kk i<+h ugha gS vkSj osru dh jlhnsa Hkh ugha gSA vr% ekSf[kd lk{; dks ;Fkkor Lohdkj fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA vr% nq?kZVuk dk o"kZ 2010 rFkk erd dh dk;Z djus dh izdfr lkekftd ifjizs{k dks /;ku esa j[k dj fopkj djrs gS rks 5000@& : vkSlru ekfld vk; ekuh tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA erd dh vk;q dks ns[krs gq, 2013 ACJ 1403 Decided 12.04.2013 Rajesh and others V/S Rajbir Singh and others esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa dh jks'kuh esa 30% jkf'k Hkfo"; esa c<+us okyh vk; ds en esa tksMh tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA bl izdkj 5000 + 1500+= 6500@& : ekfld vk; laxf.kr gksrh gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZx.k dh vk;q ,oe mu ij fuHkZjrk dks ns[krs gq, ACTC 2009(2)849 Sarla VermaV/S Delhi Transport Corporation esa fn, x, funs'kksZ ds vuqlkj 1@3 jkf'k Lo;a ds [kpsZ ds fy, ?kVkbZ tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA bl izdkj 6500&2166=4334@& : ikfjokfjd fuHkZjrk mHkj dj lkeus vkrh gSA e`rd dh vk;q dks ns[krs
(3 of 4)
[CMA-944/2014]
gq, ACTC 2009(2) 849 Sarla VermaV/S Delhi Transport Corporation esa fn, x, funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj 46 ls 50 o"kZ ds leqg dks 13 dk xq.kd fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA bl izdkj vk; dh {kfr dh x.kuk djrs gS rks 4334 X 12 X 13= 6]76]104@& : jkf'k laxf.kr gksrh gS tks izkFkhZx.k dks fnykbZ tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZx.k dh vk;q ,oe fuHkZjrk dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, gLrxr izdj.k esa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks e}s utj 2013 ACJ 1403 Decided 12.04.2013 Rajesh and others V/S Rajbir Singh and others esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa ds vuqlkj 1]00]000@&: lgp;Z ds fy, rFkk 25]000@& : I;kj o Lusg rFkk cPpkksa dks ekxZn'kZu ds vHkko esa en esa rFkk 25]000@& : vfUre laLdkj ds en esa fnyk;s tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZx.k vizkFkhZx.k la;qDr o iFkd iFkd :i ls dqy 8]26]104@& : ¼vkB yk[k Ncchl gtkj ,d lkS pkj :i;s ½ izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA vr% mijksDr foospukuqlkj bl fook|d dk fu.kZ; blh izdkj izkFkhZx.k ds gd esa vizkFkhZx.k ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA”
Counsel for the appellant submits that income of deceased was Rs.7000/- per month whereas the learned Tribunal has considered and taken it as Rs.5000/- per month.
Counsel for the appellant has further sought intervention of this Court on the ground of parental consortium while relying upon the judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. , in Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020; decided on 30.06.2020. Relevant para No.9.7 whereof reads as follows:-
(4 of 4)
[CMA-944/2014]
“9.7 Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three children as his dependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General (supra) , the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads :-
i) Loss of Estate: Rs. 15,000
ii) Loss of Consortium:
iii) Funeral Expenses : Rs. 15,000”
Per contra, counsel for the respondent submits that even if deceased was taken as “skilled worker” in the year 2010, then also the minimum wage would only come to Rs.4020/-, whereas the Tribunal has already taken income of Kishnaram (deceased) as Rs. 5000/- per month, thus, refuted enhancement in wage on the ground that it is above the minimum wage of “skilled worker” in the year 2010.
After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that there is no anomaly in the impugned judgment as Rs. 5000/- average income of the driver in the year 2010 has been rightly considered by the learned Tribunal. However, in light of decision of Hon`ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors (supra), since deceased had two children, therefore, parental consortium of Rs.80,000/- (40,000x2) deserves to be allowed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
139-Sanjay/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether parental consortium benefits are claimable when the deceased has children even after minimum wage enhancement.
Whether the increase of Rs.1,20,000/- for parental consortium should be allowed in light of Supreme Court decision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors.Referred¶19
2013 ACJ 1403 Decided 12.04.2013 Rajesh and others V/S Rajbir Singh and others
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport CorporationReferred¶19
ACTC 2009(2)849 Sarla VermaV/S Delhi Transport Corporation
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors.Relied on¶32
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020 decided on 30.06.2020
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport CorporationApplied¶19
2009 ACTC 849
Smt. Sugni Devi And Ors.
Aasuram And Ors.
Pushpendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
