Allowed

Smt Phoola v. Mehmood Khan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Oct 2023CMA/425/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 5,00,000 for the widow of a mother's deceased 11-year-old son. The Court rejected the argument that the child was a nuisance on the road, applying constitutional principles to increase loss of love and affection damages to Rs. 4,50,000 plus conventional heads. The insurance claim against the respondents was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 5,00,000 awarded against respondents. Section of CPC order set aside.

Smt Phoola Vs Mehmood Khan and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:41394]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 425/2006

¶4

Smt. Phoola Widow of Late Moti Lal, Aged 50 Years, R/o Ward No. 45, Chainpura Tan Sarwarabad, P.S. Sadar Tonk.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mehmood Khan S/o Shri Noorulla Khan R/o Ward No. 4, Niwai.

¶8

Rais Khan S/o Shri Abdul Gani Khan, House No. 151, Gali No. 3, Moti Nagar, Qweens Road, Jaipur.

¶9

The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vimal Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Bhati (for Insurance Company)

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶13

Order

¶14

13/10/2023

¶15

1- vihykFkhZ;k dh vksj ls ;g vihy /kkjk&173 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e&1988 ds rgr U;k;ky; vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k ¼QkLV Vsªd½ uEcj&3 o eksVj nq?kZVuk okn vf/kdj.k ¼ftls vkxs ^vf/kdj.k* ds uke ls lacksf/kr fd;k tk,xk½ }kjk Dyse ;kfpdk la[;k&174@2005] Jherh Qwyk cuke egewn [kka o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 18-10-2005 ¼ftls vkxs vk{ksfir fu.kZ; ds uke ls lacksf/kr fd;k tk,xk½ ds fo#) izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

¶16

2- vihykFkhZ;k }kjk vf/kdj.k ds le{k] uojru dh eksVj okgu nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gks tkus ds QyLo:i dqy 24]40]000@& #i;s Dyse izkIr djus gsrq Dyse ;kfpdk izLrqr dh x;h FkhA vf/kdj.k }kjk mDr Dyse ;kfpdk esa

[2023:RJ-JP:41394]

[CMA-425/2006]

(2 of 5)

;kph dks dqy 60]000@& #i;s dh {kfriwfrZ jkf’k e; C;kt 6 izfr’kr lkykuk dh nj ls fnyokbZ x;h gSA fo}ku vf/kdj.k ds mDr vk{ksfir fu.kZ; ls O;fFkr gksdj vihykFkhZ;k dh vksj ls ;g vihy {kfriwfrZ jkf’k esa c<+ksrjh fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh x;h gSA

¶21

3- nkSjkus cgl fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ;k dk rdZ jgk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk mDr ekeys esa erd dh 50 izfr'kr ;ksxnk;h mis{kk ekuh tkdj xaHkhj =qfV dkfjr dh xbZ gS tks fd fcuk fdlh lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSA tcfd ?kVuk ds p'enhn xokg ,-MCY;w&2 ckywjke us ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkr Fkk] ftlus Vªd pkyd dh xyrh o ykijokgh ds dkj.k nq?kZVuk gksuk crk;k gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ;k dk ;g Hkh rdZ jgk gS fd vizkFkhZ la[;k&1 Vªd pkyd ds fo#) iqfyl }kjk pktZ'khV Hkh is'k dh tk pqdh gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ;k dk ,d rdZ ;g Hkh jgk gS fd vf/kdj.k }kjk {kfriwfrZ jkf'k cgqr de fnyokbZ xbZ gS] ftlesa c<+ksrjh dh tkosA vr% vihykFkhZ;k dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy Lohdkj dh tkdj {kfriwfrZ jkf'k esa c<+ksrjh fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;hA vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ;k }kjk U;k;ky; dk /;ku fuEu U;kf;d n"Vkar dh vksj vkdf"kZr fd;k x;k %&

¶22

● Shabbir Miyan & Anr. Vs. Sawal : 2012 3 DNJ 1375

¶23

4- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ chek dEiuh dh vksj ls mijksDr rdkZsa dk fojks/k djrs gq, vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dh iqf"V fd;s tkus rFkk vihykFkhZ;k dh vksj ls lafLFkr dh x;h vihy dks fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA

¶24

5- nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl lquh x;hA vihy i=koyh o vf/kdj.k ds vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

¶25

6- ;g vihy] vihykFkhZ;k dh vksj ls vf/kdj.k }kjk fnyokbZ x;h {kfriwfrZ jkf'k esa c<+ksrjh fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh xbZ gSA izR;FkhZ chek dEiuh dh vksj ls vf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; ds fo#) dksbZ vihy izLrqr ugha dh x;h gSA

[2023:RJ-JP:41394]

[CMA-425/2006]

(3 of 5)

7- gLrxr ekeys esa erd ckyd dks oDr ?kVuk 18 o"kZ dh vk;q dk gksuk crk;k x;k gSA fdUrq vihykFkhZ;k }kjk Lo;a dk jk'ku dkMZ vf/kdj.k ds le{k izn'kZ ,&1 ds :i esa iznf'kZr djok;k x;k gS tks fd o"kZ 2001 esa tkjh fd;k x;k gSA o"kZ 2001 esa erd dh mez jk'ku dkMZ esa 8 vafdr dh xbZ gS rFkk ?kVuk fnukad 11-11-2004 dh gksuk crkbZ xbZ gSA ftlds vuqlkj oDr ?kVuk erd 11 o"khZ; ckyd gksuk izrhr gksrk gSA ftldh eksVj okgu nq?kZVuk esa eR;q dkfjr gqbZ gS rFkk Dyse ;kfpdk tfj;s izkdfrd lajf{kdk ekrk }kjk izLrqr dh x;h gSA eksVj okgu nq?kZVuk ds mu ekeyksa esa tgka cPpksa dh eR;q dkfjr gks tkrh gks] muds laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius U;kf;d n`"Vkar fd'ku xksiky o vU; cuke ykyk o vU; % 2013 ,lhts 2594 esa fuEufyf[kr fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gS %&

¶30

"In our considered view, the aforesaid legal principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa's case with all fours is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand having regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years' old, who was assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation which is an undisputed fact. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs.30,000/- and further taking the young age of the parents, namely the mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident, by applying the legal principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[3], the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand.

(4 of 5)

[2023:RJ-JP:41394]

[CMA-425/2006]

Thus, 30,000 x 15 = 4,50,000 and 50,000/- under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas[4], which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa's case and the said amount under the conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the death of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this case also we award Rs.50,000/- under conventional heads. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons the said amount would befair, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellants."

¶35

8- mijksDr U;kf;d n"Vkar dh jks'kuh esa bl ekeys esa Hkh nq?kZVuk ds le; er ckyd dh mez 11 o"kZ FkhA ;g LohÑr rF; gS fd ;fn erd thfor gksrk rks vius ekrk&firk ds o) thou ds lkFk&lkFk muds O;olk; esa mudk lg;ksx djrkA blds vykok dM+h esgur djds fuf'pr :i ls vius ekrk&firk dks vkfFkZd lgk;rk iznku djrkA blfy, mijksDr vk/kkjksa ij ;g U;k;ky; bl ekeys esa Hkh e`rd dh dkYifud vk; 30]000@& fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk mfpr le>rh gSA

¶36

9- rn~uqlkj mijksDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds vuqlkj vihykFkhZ;k fuEu izdkj ls {kfriwfrZ jkf'k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh ikbZ tkrh gS %&

¶37

On Pecuniary Head : Rs.4,50,000/Conventional Heads : Rs. 50,000/Total : Rs.5,00,000

¶38

10fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk mDr ekeys esa er ckyd dh Hkh 50 izfr'kr ;ksxnk;h mis{kk ekuh xbZ gSA i=koyh ij ;g LohÑr rF; gS fd oDr ?kVuk erd ckyd iSny&iSny tk jgk Fkk tks fd 11 o"khZ; ckyd FkkA ftldh fdlh izdkj ls ;ksxnk;h mis{kk ugha ekuh tk ldrh gSA Lo;a Vªd pkyd dh ;g ftEesnkjh Fkh fd og ns[kdj Vªd pykrkA bl laca/k esa i=koyh ij layXu uD'ksekSdk izn'kZ&3 ls ;g Li"V izrhr gksrk gS fd ?kVukLFky ?kqekonkj lM+d gSA ftl ij Vªd pkyd }kjk lko/kkuhiwoZd vius okgu dks pykuk pkfg, FkkA fdUrq Vªd pkyd }kjk lko/kkuh ugha

[2023:RJ-JP:41394]

[CMA-425/2006]

(5 of 5)

cjrh xbZA erd 11 o"khZ; ckyd Fkk] ftldh fdlh izdkj ls dksbZ xyrh ugha ekuh tk ldrhA er ckyd iSny&iSny lM+d ij tk jgk FkkA Lo;a Vªd pkyd dks laHkydj Vªd pykuk pkfg, FkkA fdUrq ,slk uk dj Vªd pkyd us ykijokgh o vlko/kkuhiwoZd Vªd dks pyk;k gS] ftl dkj.k nq?kZVuk ?kfVr gqbZ gSA ftlesa er ckyd dh fdlh izdkj ls ;ksxnk;h mis{kk ugha ekuh tk ldrh gSA vr% vf/kdj.k }kjk erd dh tks 50 izfr'kr ;ksxnk;h mis{kk ekuh x;h gS] og fujLr dh tkrh gSA

¶43

11mijksDr foospu vuqlkj e`rd uojru dh vksj ls tfj;s lajf{kdk vihykFkhZ;k dh vksj ls izLrqr dh x;h vihy dks vkaf’kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkdj fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr iapkV ftlds }kjk vihykFkhZ;k dks 60]000@& :i;s fnyok;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ds LFkku ij 5]00]000@& :i;s dk iapkV ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA vihykFkhZ;k }kjk iwoZ esa izkIr dh x;h jkf’k dks iapkV jkf’k esa ls lek;ksftr fd;k tkdj 'ks"k jkf’k vihykFkhZ;k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh ikbZ tkrh gSA

¶44

12mDr jkf'k ij ;kfpdk nk;j djus dh frfFk ls vihykFkhZ;k] 8 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gSaA

¶45

13vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk izdj.k dk vfHkys[k lacaf/kr vf/kdj.k dks ykSVk;k tkosA

¶46

14rnuqlkj ;g vihy fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA

¶47

15lHkh yfEcr izkFkZuk&i=ksa dks Hkh mijksDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

¶48

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶49

LOKESH RAJ /1

Smt Phoola v. Mehmood Khan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Phoola v. Mehmood Khan 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

State of Rajasthan Vs Shankar Lal

Smt Mamta and Others Vs Kanhiya Lal and Others

Prabha Gupta Vs Uday Lal Gurjat and Others

R S R T C Thr Chief Manager Vs Smt Sharda Devi and Ors.

Smt Lali and Others Vs Ram Singh and Others

Ajay Vs Phool Chand Gurjar and Ors.