The Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Relying on Pranay Sethi, the Court applied a 40% addition for future prospects to the deceased's income, recalculated the total compensation, and allowed the appeal in part.
Enhanced compensation to Rs. 5,03,622/- from the original award of Rs. 4,48,000/-.
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 BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1982f2008
3. Bhauti W/o Late Shri Vijay Singh, aged about 30 years
r natural guardian
Versus
I. Hari Om Sharma Malakheda, Tehsil 4281)
3. Duli Chand S/o Shri Distt. Alwar (Raj.) (Drive
harma, R/o Pai Gate, hicle No. RJ-02-C-
regional manager, , Road, Jaipur (insurer
angiwa Tehsil Bansoor, -02-P-1449) ari Lal, R/o 68, Sanjay wner of the vehicle
rough its regional ing, Ambedkar Circle, "ts, vehicle Nou u-02-P-
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma, Advocate For Respondent@) : Ms. Bharti Trivedi, Advocate Ms. Chitra Goyal, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Judament
This appeal for enhance.ment of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.05.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar (for short 'the \ Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,48,000/as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
Learned counsel for the appellants-claim'ants (for short
nal committed an compensation. T amount tow decea~$$ further, the Tribunal income towards personal 6% of the deceased whereas keeping in view of nts i.e. seven, 1/5 income ouaht to w 11 also submitted that amount awarded tow is also on the lower v-'v ,*+: .-z< 'y;r,w side. . i4: %+yf es wp On the other kk& ie'@astjpQ~ounsel for the respondent No.2 has opposed th that the Tribunal has erred in taking the ed as Rs.3,000/- per month. At the relevant um wages fixed by the State Government w h. Thus, the income of the deceased should have been considered as Rs.1560/- per month.
I have considered therrival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The claim-petition was filed by the appellants seeking compensation on account of death of Vijay Singh in the motor
vehicle accident which occurred on 03.08.2003. Although, the case of the claimants was that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, but to prove the same, no documentary or cogent evidence was produced by the claimants. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month without any basis. On 16.11.1999, prevalent rate of minimum wages fixed by the State was Rs.1560/- per month and in this matter accident
mortem report, the ears at the time of the accident. Therefore nt of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Na pany Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors 2017 SC 5157, an addition of 40% inc s future prospect of the deceased, which c .m. Thus, the monthly income of the deceas (1898+759). Keeping in view the number o one fifth of the said income is to be ded onal expenses of the deceased. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased, i.e. 30 years, multiplier of 17 would be applied. In this way, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.4,33,622/(2657x4/51217). 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.5,03,622/(433622+70000).
[CMA- 1982/2008]
(4 of 4)
Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Impugned award dated 26.05.2007 is modified to the extent that the compensation amount receivable by the claimants is Rs.5,03,622/instead of Rs.4,48,080/as awarded by the Tribunal'. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall be the same. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of *fly.. f~itjjrkhe Tribunal within a
2 issues framed by the court
What is the appropriate monthly income to be attributed to the deceased for calculating compensation?
Whether a 40% addition for future prospects is applicable to the deceased's income?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pranay Sethi & OrsRelied on¶30
Pranay Sethi & Ors 2017 SC 5157
Sri Ram
Chhota
Hari Om Sharma
PRAKASH GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
