Partly allowed

Prem and Ors. v. Islam and Ors.

Rajasthan HC11 Oct 2023CMA/1816/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Considering the impugned judgment of the Tribunal in a motor accident death claim case, the High Court modified the quantum of compensation awarded by enhancing the monthly income assessment to include future prospects and raising consortium and other benefits as per Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and award are modified to enhance the total compensation to Rs. 7,02,416/-, to be deposited by the Insurance Company with interest.

Prem and Ors. Vs Islam and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:28523]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1816/2011

¶4

Prem Widow Of Harna @ Harnarayan, aged about 42 years,

¶5

Rohitash S/o Shri Harnarayan, aged about 24 years,

¶6

Indubala D/o Shri Harnarayan, aged about 20 years,

¶7

Satish S/o Harnarayan, aged about 17 years,

¶8

Prakash S/o Shri Harnarayan, aged about 14 years,

¶9

All are R/o Joja Ka Tehsil, Tijara District Alwar

¶10

----Appellants/Claimants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Islam S/o Shri Raj Khan R/o Hasanpuri Mafi, Tehsil Tijara District Alwar

¶13

(Driver Of Vehicle)

¶14

Krishan Kumar S/o Shri Ramswaroop, R/o Rajaji Ka Bas, Behind Police Line, Alwar (Registered Owner Of The Vehicle)

¶15

Hitesh Kumar S/o Siyaram, Diwanbadi Mohalla, Tijara District Alwar

¶16

(Purchaser Of The Vehicle Through Agreement)

¶17

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Church Road, Alwar District Alwar (Insurer Of The Vehicle)

¶18

---Non Claimants/Respondents 5. Mst. Poori Widow Of Neta Ram, R/o Village Joja Ka, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar

¶19

----Proforma Respondent

¶20

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jai Raj Tantia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain (for respondentInsurance Company)

(2 of 7)

[2023:RJ-JP:28523]

[CMA-1816/2011]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶25

Order

¶26

11/10/2023

¶27

The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 25.05.2006 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.1 Kishangarh, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No.156/2004, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,72,000/- to the claimantsappellants.

¶28

The claimants-appellants filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.37,22,000/-. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues and evaluated the evidence on record. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition, awarded the aforesaid amount as compensation in favour of the claimantsappellants.

¶29

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 25.05.2006, the claimants-appellants filed this miscellaneous appeal for suitable enhancement of the amount awarded as compensation by learned Tribunal.

¶30

Brief facts of this case are that on 23.10.2004, one Harnarayan (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was travelling to his village when, driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-02-G-7439 drove it in a rash and negligent

[2023:RJ-JP:28523]

[CMA-1816/2011]

(3 of 7)

manner due to which Harnarayan got hit by the vehicle. The deceased was admitted in the hospital, where during the medical treatment he subsequently died.

¶35

Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contended that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award, has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- on the date of accident.

¶36

Learned counsel further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding any amount under the head of future prospects, as the deceased was 45 years of age at time of accident and, therefore, the claimants-appellants are entitled for future prospects.

¶37

Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that there are 6 dependents on the deceased, however learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3^rd amount under the head of personal expenses and therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award may be suitably enhanced in favour of the claimants-appellants.

¶38

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company submitted that learned Tribunal while assessing the monthly income of the deceased, has wrongly applied multiplier of 15. Learned counsel further submitted that monthly income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.100/per day, whereas, on the date of accident minimum daily wages of an unskilled labour were Rs.73/- per day and therefore, the monthly income of the deceased should have been assessed as

(4 of 7)

[2023:RJ-JP:28523]

[CMA-1816/2011]

Rs.2,190/-, hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the same be dismissed.

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶44

Learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment has observed that no evidence was produced to prove that the deceased, was working as a security guard and agricultural labour used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of accident.

¶45

Accordingly, learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. This Court does not find any legal ground to interfere with this finding of learned Tribunal and hence, monthly income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.3,000/-.

¶46

Admittedly, learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount to the claimants-appellants under the head of future prospects. This Court finds that the deceased was 45 years of age at time of accident and was self employed also. Therefore, increment of 25% as to the future prospects, as per the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 is to be made. Thus, total monthly income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.3,000/- + 25% (Rs.750/-) future prospects = Rs.3,750/- per month.

¶47

It is an admitted fact that the deceased is survived by his wife and children. Mother of the deceased was appellant in the claim petition filed before learned Tribunal, however, she has not

[2023:RJ-JP:28523]

[CMA-1816/2011]

(5 of 7)

filed any appeal challenging the impugned judgment and award. In the present appeal for this reason, she has been made proforma respondent. Therefore, there were five dependents on the deceased and 1/4th part of the income of the deceased should be deducted under the head of personal expenses. After such deduction, the net income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.3,750/- divided by 4 = Rs.938/- and total Rs.3,750/- – Rs.938/- = Rs.2,812/- per month.

¶52

The age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of accident, thus as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) the multiplier of 14 is applicable in this case. Now, applying the multiplier of 14, total amount quantified as loss of dependency comes out to be Rs.2,812/- X 12 X 14 = Rs.4,72,416/-.

¶53

Learned Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of consortium to the claimantsappellants. As per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur & Anr. reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the appellant No.1-wife of the deceased is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- under the head of spousal consortium, appellant Nos.2 to 5, who are children of the deceased are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each under the head of parental consortium.

(6 of 7)

[CMA-1816/2011]

[2023:RJ-JP:28523]

Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, however, as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), it needs to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-.

¶58

Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of estate whereas, according to the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/- is required to be granted under the head of loss of estate.

¶59

So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the

¶60

extent as under:

¶61

1.	Loss of Annual Income (as per the age of the deceased, multiplier of 14).	Rs.2,812/- X 12 X 14 = Rs.4,72,416/-
2.	Under the head of Spousal Consortium, Parental Consortium and Filial Consortium	Rs.40,000/- (each to the appellants) = Total Rs.2,00,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-
4.	Loss of estate	Rs.15,000/-
5.	Total amount of compensation	Rs.7,02,416/-
6.	Less amount awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.3,72,000/-
7.	Enhanced amount of compensation	(Rs.7,02,416/- - Rs.3,72,000/-) = Rs.3,30,416/-

¶62

In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award dated 25.05.2006 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The claimants-appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.7,02,416/- as compensation. Insurance Company is directed to deposit enhanced amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. After deposition of the said amount, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same in terms of

(7 of 7)

[2023:RJ-JP:28523]

[CMA-1816/2011]

the award. The enhanced amount shall carry 8% interest from the

¶67

date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made.

¶68