Partly allowed

Sarju Devi and Ors. v. Mahesh Kr and Ors.

Rajasthan HC25 Jul 2023CMA/2604/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident death claim. It recomputed the award by applying a multiplier of 7 for a deceased aged 61-65, adjusting the personal expenditure deduction to 1/4th with four dependents, and increasing non-pecuniary loss to Rs. 70,000.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation to Rs. 2,17,950/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from filing date.

Sarju Devi and Ors. Vs Mahesh Kr and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2604/2007

¶3

Smt. Sarju Devi wife of Late Shri Ram Gopal Kumawat, aged 55 years,

¶4

Shrawan Kumar son of Late Shri Ram Gopal, aged 36 years,

¶5

Arun Kumar son of Late Shri Ram Gopal Kumawat, aged 34 years,

¶6

Pawan Kumar son of Late Shri Ram Gopal, aged 26 years, All by caste Kumawat, Residents of Dholi Mandi, Rainwal Road, Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mahesh Kumar son of Shri Raj Kumar, by caste Jat, Resident of Nagali, P.S. Ramgadh Shekhawati, District Sikar

¶10

The Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation Limited, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur through Managing Director

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Kapil Sharma on behalf of Sandeep Mathur
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Dhoop Singh Poonia &
	Mr.	Virendra Agrawal

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶14

Judgment

¶15

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 21/07/2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 25/07.2023

¶16

The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of compensation against the Judgment dated 20.02.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chomu, District Jaipur in M.A.C. Case No. 133/2006 (Smt. Sarju Devi & Ors. vs. Mahesh Kumar & Anr.), whereby while

¶17

[CMA-2604/2007]

¶18

(2 of 6)

¶19

partly allowing the claim petition, a sum of Rs. 1,82,420/- along with interest @ 9% per annum was awarded in favour of the appellants-claimants on account of death of the deceased Ramgopal, which took place in a road accident occurred on 23.08.2005.

¶20

Brief facts as they emerge are that on 23.08.2005, Ramgopal Kumawat along with daughter of his friend Puranmal Katariya, namely, Ms. Monika Katariya was going on the scooter bearing Registration No. RJ-14-20M-6947 to drop her at the college. Ms. Pooja was pillion rider. At around 1.00 p.m., when they reached at the Municipality's CC Road and Ringus Road Circle, driver of Roadways Bus No. RJ-10-P-3569 plying it at high speed, rashly and negligently hit the scooter, on account of which, Ramgopal Kumawat and Ms. Monika sustained grievous injuries. During the treatment, Ramgopal succumbed to injuries. The appellant No. 1, who is widow of the deceased Ramgopal and appellant Nos. 2 to 4, who are sons of the deceased Ramgopal, filed the joint claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1988") against the respondents/non-claimant before the learned tribunal and claimed the total compensation of Rs. 36,32,700/- under various heads along with interest.

¶21

The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed the Judgment dated 20.02.2007 and partly allowed the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants awarding a total sum of Rs. 1,82,420/- along with interest @ 9%

¶22

(3 of 6)

¶23

[CMA-2604/2007]

¶24

per annum in favour of the appellants-claimants. Hence, this appeal for enhancement of compensation has been filed by the appellants-claimants.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that deceased Ramgopal being a retired government employee was superannuated from the post of Headmaster. As per Pension Payment Order (Ex.13), deceased Ramgopal was getting monthly pension of Rs. 5,244/- after effecting necessary deductions, which he was incurring on his family. Had the deceased been survived, appellants-claimants would have got a sum of Rs. 5,244/- per month, which has now been halved. But the learned tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 5,244/- and has wrongly considered family pension of Rs. 3,836/- as monthly income, which is being received by his widow i.e. appellant No. 1-claimant, for computing loss of income on account of death of the deceased. He has contended that the learned tribunal has further erred in deducting 1/3rd amount from family pension of Rs.3,836/- towards personal expenditures of the deceased. He has further submitted that looking to the dependency upon the deceased i.e. four number of dependents, the learned tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenditures of the deceased, which should have been 1/4th. Learned counsel has further submitted that learned tribunal has also erred in applying multiplier of 5, which looking to the age group of the deceased would have been taken as 7. He has further submitted that learned tribunal has also

¶27

[CMA-2604/2007]

¶28

(4 of 6)

¶29

erred in awarding a total sum of Rs.29,000/- towards nonpecuniary loss, which should have been increased to the tune of Rs. 70,000/-.

¶30

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the cases of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & ors. reported in 2017/ACJ/2700 and Sarla Verma & Ors. V/s Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 12 . Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that the appeal of the appellants–claimants may be allowed and the award of compensation in the present case may be recomputed in light of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have fairly conceded that looking to the age group of the deceased Ramgopal, multiplier of 7 instead of 5 should have been applied and that a total sum of Rs. 70,000/- instead of Rs. 29,000/- would be payable towards non-pecuniary loss in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), however, they have submitted that learned tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the monthly income of the deceased Ramgopal as Rs. 3,836/- per month, for the purpose of computing loss of income and computed the compensation under this head after making necessary deductions towards personal expenditures of the deceased, which does not warrant any interference.

¶32

[CMA-2604/2007]

¶33

(5 of 6)

¶34

I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the judgment dated 20.02.2007 passed by the Tribunal as also other relevant documents.

¶35

In the present case, it is an admitted position that deceased Ramgopal was a retired government employee. As per Postmortem Report (Ex.10), age of the deceased at the time of accident was 62 years, which has not been disputed by learned counsel for the parties. Therefore, looking to the age group of the deceased i.e. 61-65 years, judgment rendered in the case of Sarla Verma & ors. (supra) and also as agreed by learned counsel for the respondents, multiplier of 7 would be applicable instead of 5.

¶36

As per Pension Payment Order (Ex.13), it is not in dispute that deceased was getting monthly pension of Rs. 5,244/-, which he was incurring on his family. Therefore, in the present case, loss of income on account of untime death of the deceased Ramgopal would be Rs. 5,244/-. Since there are four dependents of the deceased in the present case, therefore, 1/4th deduction instead of 1/3rd towards personal expenditures of the deceased would be applied in terms of judgment rendered in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). The learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 29,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss, which would be payable @ Rs. 70,000/- i.e. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/respectively, as agreed by learned counsel for the respondents.

¶37

Thus, the recomputation of award is as under :-

¶38

(I) Compensation due	to Rs.	5,244/- x	Rs. 4,40,496/-
death	12 x	7

¶39

(6 of 6)

¶40

[CMA-2604/2007]

¶41

(II)	Amount to be deducted as spent on himself (Rs. 4,40,496/- - 1/4th)		Rs. 1,10,124/-
(III)	Loss of income (Rs. 4,40,496/- - Rs. 1,10,124/-)		Rs. 3,30,372/-
	Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000/-
	Funeral Expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 40,000/-	Rs. 70,000/-
	Total		Rs. 4,00,372/-
	Compensation awarded by	learned tribunal	Rs. 1,82,420/-
	Enhanced amount (Rs. 2,17,952/- rounde 2,17,950/-)	d off to Rs.	Rs. 2,17,950/-

¶42

Accordingly, the appellants-claimants are held entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.2,17,950/-. The respondent -Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation shall deposit enhanced amount of Rs. 2,17,950/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its Judgment dated 20.02.2007 within a period of eight weeks from today. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual payment is made. The amount deposited by the respondent - Corporation shall be disbursed by the learned tribunal to the appellants-claimants in accordance with law.

¶43

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment dated 20.02.2007 passed by the learned tribunal stands modified to the above extent.

¶44

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶45

KESHAV GHIYA /

Sarju Devi and Ors. v. Mahesh Kr and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarju Devi and Ors. v. Mahesh Kr 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

Regional Director and Ors. Vs M/S Popular Art Palace

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ishwar Lal and Others

Smt Prem Devi Vs Smt Chota Devi and Others

Reliance Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sharwan Kumar Alias Gyani and Others

Sharwan Kumar Alias Gyani Vs Ramswaroop Meena and Others

Amar Chand Vs State