Allowed

Jeenat W/O Shri Riyaz Ahmed v. Satish Kumar Tepan S/O Babu Lal

Rajasthan HC2 May 2023CMA/1534/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's assessment of the claimant's income at Rs. 4,000/month lacking proof. The High Court held the Tribunal erred in not using minimum wage rates, enhanced the loss-of-earning compensation to Rs. 3,72,330/-, and ordered interest on the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

The award is modified; compensation awarded to Rs. 3,72,330/-. Enhancement of Rs. 1,20,330/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

Jeenat W/O Shri Riyaz Ahmed Vs Satish Kumar Tepan… — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/009113]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1534/2020

¶4

Jeenat W/o Shri Riyaz Ahmed, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Raheem Nagar, Kho Nagoriyan, Jaipur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Satish Kumar Tepan S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Raipura, Post Kachrawal, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk, At Present Driver, Tonk Agar, (Driver)

¶8

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Manager, Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Owner Of The Vehicle)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶12

Judgment

¶13

02/05/2023

¶14

The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (afterwards referred as ‘Act of 1988’) has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 14.02.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur (afterwards referred as ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.911/2019, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,48,000/- as compensation.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that on 04.04.2015 the appellant, as a pillion rider, while going on a Motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ14-50M-0021 from Sindhi Camp towards Meer Ji Ka Bagh, at about 02:00 PM when reached opposite Mahendra & Mahendra

[2023/RJJP/009113]

[CMA-1534/2020]

(2 of 6)

Showroom at M.I. Road, was hit from back side by a Roadway Bus bearing registration No. RJ26-PA-0417, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No. 1, as a result of which, the appellant sustained injuries. At the time of accident, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were driver and owner of the Bus, respectively.

¶20

In pursuance to the said accident, an FIR was lodged at P.S. Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur on 18.04.2015. The police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the respondents.

¶21

A claim petition to this effect was filed by the appellant for award of compensation. Notices to be claim petition were issued to the respondents, to which, the respondent contested the claim petition by filing written statement and denied the averments contained in the claim petition.

¶22

Learned Tribunal after hearing the parties, vide judgment & award dated 20.09.2018 while partly allowing the claim petition has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,47,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellant.

¶23

Against the said award RSRTC filed an appeal being S.B.C.M.A. No.5567/2018 and appellant also filed an appeal being S.B.C.M.A. No.5605/2018 before the High Court.

¶24

Both the appeals were decided by a common judgment dated 30.10.2019 by the High Court, whereby, the appeal filed by RSRTC was dismissed and the appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of and the matter was remitted to the learned Tribunal to the limited extent for reassessment of the amount of compensation by adopting appropriate multiplier on the basis of permanent disablement and age of proof produced by the injured claimant.

[2023/RJJP/009113]

[CMA-1534/2020]

(3 of 6)

Pursuant to the judgment dated 30.10.2019 fresh impugned award has been passed by the learned Tribunal, against which, the present appeal has been filed for enhancement of amount awarded towards loss of earning.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant asserts that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error in construing the income of the appellant claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month, whereas, it is precisely pleaded in the claim petition that the claimant is engaged in tailoring work and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. He further argues that in want of income proof, learned Tribunal ought to have considered the prevalent minimum wages while estimating the income of the appellant but the learned Tribunal arbitrarily reckoned the income of the appellant as Rs.4,000/- per month, whereas, for the unskilled labours, the prevalent rates were Rs.197/- per day and for a month it comes to Rs.5,196/-. Hence, he prays for considering the income of the claimant at Rs.5,196/- per month and computing the future prospects and permanent disability on the above amount accordingly.

¶30

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 RSRTC would contend that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal itself is on the higher side and it does not require any enhancement or escalation, particularly when claimants have failed to prove the income by any convincing evidence.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of judgment and award in question as also evidence tendered by both the parties before the learned Tribunal, I am of the considered view that the following point would arise for consideration:-

[2023/RJJP/009113]

[CMA-1534/2020]

(4 of 6)

"Whether learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month and accordingly awarded the compensation amounting to Rs.3,48,000/-.”

¶36

There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and the liability of the respondent - RSRTC to pay the compensation. In view of this admitted position, it is unnecessary to narrate the factual aspects of the case.

¶37

Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of

¶38

Civil Appeal No. 7593/2022 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28833/2019) Manusha Sreekumar & Ors. vs. The United India Insurance while relying upon the judgment rendered in the matter of Chanda alias Chandraram and Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. , held that in the absence of a salary certificate, the minimum wages notification along with some amount of guesswork that is not completely detached from reality shall act as a yardstick to determine the income of the claimant/deceased.

¶39

In the instant case admittedly learned Tribunal has assessed the claimant's monthly income as Rs.4,000/- per month. Undisputedly claimant did not furnish any proof before the learned Tribunal about her monthly income. Therefore in the absence of any proof regarding monthly income of the claimant the finding of the learned Tribunal assessing the income of claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month is arbitrary.

¶40

In my view in the absence of any proof of income, learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the prevalent minimum wages applicable in the State of Rajasthan at the time of the accident while assessing the nature of employment of the claimant. The prevalent minimum wage for skilled labours at the

[2023/RJJP/009113]

[CMA-1534/2020]

(5 of 6)

time of the accident was Rs.197/- per day and the monthly income comes about Rs.5,129/-.

¶45

The fact regarding the applicability of 25% as future prospects and the claimant suffered 30% of the bodily disability due to the accident is also not in dispute. Thus in light of the above, the award is modified as follows:-

¶46

Monthlyincome(Rs.197x30)	Rs. 5,910/-
Annual income(Rs.5910x12)	Rs. 70,920/-
Multiplier to be applied – 14 (70,920x14)	Rs. 9,92,880/-
Permanent disability – 30% (9,92,8808x30/100)	Rs. 2,97,864/-
After adding 25% towards future prospects (2,97,864x25/100)	Rs. 74,466/-
Total compensation awardable	Rs. 3,72,330/-
Less amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earning	Rs. 2,52,000/-
Enhanced amount of compensation	Rs. 1,20,330/-

¶47

In view of the above, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 1,20,330/-, which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition.

¶48

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The award dated 14.02.2020 is modified to the extent that claimant would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,72,330/- instead of Rs. 2,52,000/- towards loss of earning as awarded by the learned Tribunal. On the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 1,20,330/-, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of actual payment. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited in the saving bank account of the appellant through

(6 of 6)

[2023/RJJP/009113]

[CMA-1534/2020]

learned Tribunal by the RSRTC within a period of two month from the date of this judgment.

¶53

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶54

ASHWINI KUMAR CHOUHAN /680

Jeenat W/O Shri Riyaz Ahmed v. Satish Kumar Tepan S/O Babu Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeenat W/O Shri Riyaz Ahmed v. Satish Kumar Tepan S/O Babu Lal

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

Surajmal Jaat S/O Shri Nathuram Jaat Vs Smt. Laxmi W/O Late Shri Mukesh Kumar Saini

Gopal Lal Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajkumari Gaur Vs State of Rajasthan

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohanlal and Ors.

Dinesh Yadav Son of Shri Madan Lal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Union of India Vs Hanuman Prasad S/O Late Shri Goverdhanlal Sharma