Partly allowed

Parvati and Ors. v. Naresh Kaswan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Apr 2022CMA/915/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an enhancement appeal regarding a motor accident death claim, the High Court modified the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The Court applied the Pranay Sethi ratio to enhance future loss of earnings by 40% and increased the multiplier from 17 to 18, granting further compensation of Rs. 3,91,200 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

The appellants were granted enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,91,200 with interest at 6% and the impugned award was modified.

Parvati and Ors. Vs Naresh Kaswan and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 915/2003

¶4

Parvati W/o Sh. Jagdish Rai, b/c Brahamin, Tiwari.

¶5

Rekha Wd/o Sh. Udaipal Tiwari, b/c Brahamin, Tiwari.

¶6

Divatya @ Pappu D/o Sh. Udaipal, minor through her natural guardian mother Smt. Rekha.

¶7

Jagdish Rai S/o Sh. Sohanlal, b/c Brahamin, Tiwari.

¶8

All residents of 53 N.P., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, Distt.

Sriganganagar.

----Appellants

Versus

Naresh Kaswan S/o Sh. Surajbhan Kaswan, R/o Modha Singhana, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, Haryana.

¶13

Tiverendra Kumar S/o Sh. Om Parkash, b/c Jat, R/o Modha Singhana, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, Haryana.

¶14

The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sirsa, Haryana, through its Branch Manager.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal : Mr. Anil Kaushik

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

04/04/2022

¶20

The instant enhancement appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 10.07.2003 passed by the learned

¶21

(2 of 5)

¶22

[CMA-915/2003]

¶23

Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raisinghnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the leanred tribunal' for short) in Civil Misc. (MACT) case No.5/2002, whereby the claim petition filed by claimantsappellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") was partly allowed and the leanred tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs.6,26,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

¶24

Facts in brief are that on 29.10.2001 at about 2:00 PM when deceased Udaipal was travelling from Hanumangarh to Pilibanga on his motorcycle, then at Dabli Bus Stand, a Jeep bearing No. HR-24F-0544 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle"), which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver Naresh Kaswan, hit the deceased Udaipal, resulting into grievous injuries, and ultimately death of Sh. Udaipal.

¶25

In the claim petition, the claimants-appellants claimed that the deceased Udaipal was a practicing lawyer and was earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month from his profession and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month was also earning by him while doing cultivation work. It was also stated that the offending vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd.

¶26

The appellants-claimants being mother, wife, daughter and father filed the aforesaid claim application under Section 166 of the Act before the learned Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.82,80,222/-. It was also pleaded in the claim application that the deceased was 24 years' young at the time of accident. 5. The Tribunal framed the usual issues for consideration and while deciding the claim application held that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident by rash and negligent driving. The claimants were held entitled to

¶27

(3 of 5)

¶28

[CMA-915/2003]

¶29

compensation and thus, the claim petition was partly allowed and as against the total claim of Rs.82,80,222/-, the claimants were awarded a sum of Rs.6,26,000/- as compensation. The nonapplicants were held jointly and severely responsible to indemnify the award amount. As these findings have not been challenged by any of the non-applicants, the same have become final against them. The only issue, which thus, remains for consideration is as to whether the appellants are entitled to any enhancement in the compensation.

¶30

Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the claimants-appellants came out with a specific case that at the time of accident, deceased Udaipal was 24 years' young and the learned Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.4,500/- per month, but the learned Tribunal failed to assess the future prospects as the deceased was young, promising and brilliant lawyer, and therefore, his earning could not be assumed to be static at Rs.4,500/-. It was also submitted that the earning of a lawyer increases after getting experience and therefore, it is submitted that the loss of earnings at Rs.4,500/- at that point of time is too low and loss of earnings on a dynamic pattern should have been taken to be at least Rs.20,000/- per month aggregating to Rs.2,40,000/- per year and after taking 1/3^rd deduction therefrom, the earnings available to the family should have been taken to be Rs.1,60,000/- per year. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the multiplier of only 17 has been applied in the present case, whereas the same ought to have been 20 as per the ratio laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶31

(4 of 5)

¶32

[CMA-915/2003]

¶33

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not award a single penny in relation to the loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of parental consortium, funeral expenses etc.

¶35

Per contra Mr. Anil Kaushik learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award and there is no scope for enhancing the said amount of compensation.

¶36

Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶37

record.

¶38

The learned Tribunal held the age of the deceased to be 24 years' at the time of accident and has also applied the multiplier of 17, but has failed to assessed the future prospects which a young, promising and brilliant lawyer could earn during his life time. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) at least 40% of the future prospects is to be added to the monthly income of the deceased and the multiplier of 18 also to be applied in the present case looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶39

Thus, in view of what has been discussed above and looking to the age of the deceased at the time of accident viz 24 years', the following computation deserves to be just, proper and reasonable for deciding the quantum of enhance compensation awardable to the appellants.

¶40

Sr. No.	Particulars	Amount
A.	Loss of dependency

¶41

(5 of 5)

¶42

[CMA-915/2003]

¶43

	i) Income Assessed ii)Future Prospects(40%)	Rs.4,500/- per month Rs.1,800/-per month
	Total	Rs. 6,300/-per month
	(-) 1/3^rd deduction (personal consumption)	Rs. 2100/-
	Total =	Rs.4200/-per month
	i) Multiplied by 12 (yearly income) ii) Multiplier (18)	Rs.4200 X 12 = Rs.50,400/- Rs.50,400X 18 =Rs.9,07,200/-
B.	Convention Heads
	i) Funeral expenses + loss of estate + loss of consortium. ii) Loss of parental consortium	Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 40,000/-
	Total compensation	Rs. 10,17,200/-
C.	Already awarded amount (-)	Rs. 06,26,000/-
D.	Total Enhanced amount	Rs. 03,91,200/-

¶44

The claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 6% on the enhanced amount of Rs.3,91,200/- from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶45

The enhanced amount shall be distributed to the claimants as per the terms and conditions enumerated by the learned Tribunal.

¶46

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award dated 10.07.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raisinghnagar is modified and the appellants are held entitled for enhanced compensation as indicated above.

¶47

Record be sent back forthwith. 16. No cost.

¶48

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶49

105-Jagjeet/-

Parvati and Ors. v. Naresh Kaswan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvati and Ors. v. Naresh Kaswan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R S R T C and Anr. Vs Smt. Gurvinder Kaur and Ors.

Kamla Devi Vs Sukhdev Swami Chela Shri Ramniwas Swami

Kailash Vs Vijayraj

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Madhu

Bhanwar Lal Vs Shanti Lal and Ors.

Balveer Kaur Vs Jagmail Singh