Allowed

Kamji and Anr. v. Dasrath Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Dec 2023CMA/1072/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court enhanced compensation awarded in a motor accident claim. It fixed monthly earnings at Rs.1800/-, added 40% for future prospects, corrected the multiplier to 18, and granted amounts for consortium and loss of estate, increasing total compensation to Rs.5,18,240/-.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,12,000/- to Rs.5,18,240/- with 7.5% interest from filing date.

Kamji and Anr. Vs Dasrath Singh and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:44172]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1072/2004

¶4

Sh. Kamji s/o Haluji Meena, Aged 40 years, 2. Smt. Limbdi w/o Kamji Meena, Aged 36 years, All resident of Pipli “B”, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh. Dasrath Singh s/o Raghunath Singh Rajpoot, Resident of Gram Banewdi, P.S. Shree Nagar, District Ajmer. 2. Managing Director, Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited, Jaipur. Branch Goverdhan Vilas, Udaipur. 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, 3, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sarupuria For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sunil A. Vyas -Insurance Company

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Judgment

¶11

14/12/2023

¶12

The present appeal has been filed assailing the award dated 27.03.2004 passed by learned M.A.C.T. Judge, Salumbhar (A.D.J. No.02 Udaipur) on the file of M.A.C. Case No.300/2002 titled as “Sh. Kamji s/o Haluji Meena Vs. Dashrath Singh & Ors.”, wherein and whereby the claim of the appellant for compensation was partly allowed granting a compensation of Rs.1,12,000/- with interest.

¶13

The contention of the learned counsel for the claimantappellant is that the Tribunal has not fixed the monthly earnings of the deceased and even though the finding was given that the deceased was a labour engaged for loading and unloading in the

[2023:RJ-JD:44172]

[CMA-1072/2004]

(2 of 4)

mining area, notional income was taken, which is incorrect. According to him, the Tribunal should have fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1800/-, which was fixed for other similarly situated labourers. It is also his contention that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future prospects. The deceased was only 18 years of age and he was self-employed. The Tribunal should have granted 40% addition in the earnings towards future prospects.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal has rightly fixed annual income of Rs.15,000/- considering the age of the deceased and his engagement for loading and unloading of the dumper and he was not working in the mining area. According to him, such a fixation of the compensation requires no interference.

¶19

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The Tribunal has accepted that the deceased was engaged for loading and unloading of the dumper in the mining area. The evidence also shows that the deceased along with other labourers while proceeding to the mining area met with an accident and other labourers working in the mining area were also died along with the present deceased. Their monthly earnings were fixed as Rs.1800/-, however, the Tribunal has not extended such wages to the present deceased. There is also no evidence that person working in the loading and unloading, and person working in the mining area are differently paid. Therefore, the Tribunal should have accepted the monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs.1800/and this Court fixed the monthly earnings as Rs.1800/-.

[2023:RJ-JD:44172]

[CMA-1072/2004]

(3 of 4)

The Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future rise in the income of the deceased. The deceased was self-employed and as per the decision of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , an amount of 40% should be added to the actual earnings of the deceased.

¶24

The deceased was bachelor and he is survived by his parents, 50% deduction shall be given towards his personal expenses.

¶25

The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 11, which is incorrect. The deceased was 18 years of age and infact, multiplier of 18 should have been adopted considering the age of the deceased in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt. & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. Reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Thus, the multiplier of 18 is fixed.

¶26

The Tribunal has granted Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses, which is increased to Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards consortium and loss of estate. The deceased survived by his parents. A sum of Rs.40,000/- each is granted towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The amount granted towards funeral expenses shall be adjusted under this conventional head.

¶27

Taking into account the above factors, the following amounts

¶28

are arrived at :

¶29

1. Annual income of the deceased (1800 x 12)	21,600
2. Added: future prospects (40%)	8,640
3. Total annual income of the deceased	30,240
(21,600+ 8,640)
4. Deducted : towards personal expenses (1/4)	7,560
5. Annual amount of dependency (30,240-7,560)	22,680

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:44172]

[CMA-1072/2004]

6. Multiplier to be applied	18
7. Total amount of dependency (22,680 X 18)	4,08,240
8. Added : Consortium to claimant(40,000 X 2)	80,000
9. Added : Loss of estate	15,000
10. Added : Funeral expenses	15,000
Total entitlement of the appellant	Rs.5,18,240

¶34

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,12,000/- to Rs.5,18,240/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry an interest of 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposition. The amount shall be deposited within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶36

8-poonamS/NK/-

Kamji and Anr. v. Dasrath Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamji and Anr. v. Dasrath Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Lajwanti and Ors.

Hukma Ram Vs Jagdish Prasad and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Ambu Kanwar and Ors.

Homa and Ors. Vs Dasrath Singh and Ors.

Smt. Shanta and Ors. Vs Dasrath Singh and Ors.

Smt. Hanifa and Ors. Vs Smt. Gamer Kanwar and Ors.