Partly allowed

Smt.Patasi v. Jaswant Singh

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2023CMA/653/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Jodhpur allowed a partially filed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in a motor accident death compensation case. The Court enhanced compensation to Rs.6,50,800/- by adopting a higher multiplier, increasing funeral expenses, and adding loss of consortium.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.3,89,500/- to Rs.6,50,800/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a.

Smt.Patasi Vs Jaswant Singh — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:41819]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 653/2003

¶4

Smt. Patasi w/o Shri Banshilal, Aged 49 years,

¶5

Magh Raj S/o Shri Banshilal, Aged 14 years,

¶6

Residents of village Sawta Matoda, Teh. Osian, District Jodhpur, appellant No.2 minor through his natural guardian mother Smt. Patasi w/o Shri Banshilal appellant No.1

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Jaswant Singh S/o Madho Singh, Resident of village Osian, Distt. Jodhpur. (Driver of jeep No. RJ 19/T-1275)

¶10

Mohan Ram S/o Kesu Ram, Resident of village Jatipura, Teh. Osian, District Jodhpur. (Owner of the jeep RJ 19/T-1275)

¶11

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office-Residency Road, Jodhpur through its Divisional Manager. (the insurer)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.Suresh Joshi
For Respondent	: Mr. Vishal Raj Mehta
No.3.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order

¶15

02/12/2023

¶16

The challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 05.10.2002 passed learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur on the file of M.A.C. Case No.182/1998, wherein and whereby the claim for compensation of the appellants for the death of Banshilal was partly allowed granting a compensation of Rs.3,89,500/- with interest.

¶17

The present appeal is filed by the claimants. The grievance of the claimants is that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects in earning of the deceased. The deceased was Head

[2023:RJ-JD:41819]

[CMA-653/2003]

(2 of 4)

Peon in the Bank and he was having bright prospects of his promotion. The Tribunal should have taken the professional progress of the deceased and the amount ought to have been granted under the head of future loss of earning. Their grievance is also that the Tribunal has not adopted the appropriate multiplier considering the age of the deceased as 50 years. The Tribunal should have taken the multiplier of 13, whereas, the Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 11, which is incorrect. The other grievance is that the amounts granted under the conventional heads are also on lower side.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company justified the award of compensation passed by the Tribunal. According to him, the compensations under the conventional heads were fixed taking into consideration the law prevailing at the relevant time. Therefore, such finding of the Tribunal does not require interference at this stage.

¶23

The undisputed fact as made out from the evidence is that the deceased was Head Peon working in the Bank of Baroda. His monthly earning was Rs.3,942/- (rounded off Rs.4000/-) and such employment was permanent employment. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, wherein the deceased was permanent employee and was in the age group of 40-50, 30% of the actual earning shall be added towards loss of future earnings. In the present case, the age of the deceased was 50 years and 30% shall be given addition to the actual monthly earning of the deceased. 30% of the monthly income of Rs.4000/come to Rs.1200/-. Accordingly, the total monthly income comes

(3 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:41819]

[CMA-653/2003]

to Rs.4000 + 1200=Rs.5200/- and annual income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.5200 X 12=Rs.62,400/-.

¶28

The deceased is survived by wife and son and the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses is 1/3. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 11 but looking to the fact that deceased was aged 50 years, the appropriate multiplier is 13, which is adopted in this case.

¶29

The Tribunal has granted Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses to the claimants, which is on the lower side. As per the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Churu Ram , reported in 2018 LAW Suit (SC) 904, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has granted Rs.2500/- only towards loss of estate. The claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.15,000/- under this head. The Tribunal has granted Rs.15000/- towards mental agony. The consortium for each of the claimant shall be Rs. 40,000/- (total compensation towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000 X 2 = Rs.80,000/-). The amount granted under the head of mental agony shall be adjusted towards the loss of consortium. Thus, the re-computed amount of compensation works out as under:[Rs.62,400/- (annual income) – Rs.20,800/- (1/3 Personal expenses)= Rs.41,600/- X 13 (multiplier) = 540,800/-]

¶30

Loss of dependency : Rs.5,40,800/Added: Loss of Consortium : Rs. 80,000/Added: Funeral Expenses : Rs. 15,000/Added. Loss of Estate : Rs. 15,000/------------------Total amount Rs.6,50,800/--------------------

[2023:RJ-JD:41819]

[CMA-653/2003]

(4 of 4)

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,89,500/- to Rs.6,50,800/-. The enhanced amount shall carry an interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till its realization. The enhanced amount shall be deposited within 2 months from the date of this judgment.

¶35

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶36

9-AnilKC/NK

Smt.Patasi v. Jaswant Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Patasi v. Jaswant Singh

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

Shanta Devi Vs R.S.R.T.C.

Rajan and Ors. Vs Prahalad Singh

Madan Singh and Ors. Vs Babu Giri and Ors.

Deepar Ram and Anr. Vs Narayan Singh and Anr.

Khetaram Vs State

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