Partly allowed

Deepar Ram and Anr. v. Narayan Singh and Anr.

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2023CMA/661/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 661/2002, the High Court of Rajasthan partly allowed the appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, enhancing compensation from Rs. 2,42,600 to Rs. 4,12,520 for the death of the deceased, applying Supreme Court principles.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 2,42,600 to Rs. 4,12,520 with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till deposition.

Deepar Ram and Anr. Vs Narayan Singh and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:41806]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 661/2002

¶4

Deepa Ram S/o Jetha ji

¶5

Sadu Bai W/o Deepa Ram

¶6

both by caste Janwa Choudhary, R/o Bhadres Tehsil Desuri, Distt. Pali.

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Narayan Singh, S/o Bheru Singh Chundawat by caste Rajput R/o Band, Teh. Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara

¶10

Yusuf Mohd. S/o Haji Mohd. R/o Rani Pratap Bazar, Teh. Desuri, Distt. Pali 3.. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Mandia Road, Pali Marwar.

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Bharat Singh on behalf of
	Mr.Shambhoo Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vishal RajMehta

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

¶14

Judgment

¶15

02/12/2023

¶16

The challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 20.05.2002 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali on the file of M.A.C. Case No. 72/99 wherein and whereby the claim for compensation of the appellants for the death of Deva Ram was partly allowed granting a compensation of Rs.2,42,600/- with interest.

¶17

Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

[2023:RJ-JD:41806]

[CMA-661/2002]

(2 of 4)

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has not properly fixed the monthly wages considering the profession of the deceased. According to him, the monthly earnings must have been not less than Rs.5,000/- after deducting the personal expenses as spoken by AW-1. Whereas the Tribunal has only taken Rs.2,100/-, which is on the lower side. It is also the contention of learned counsel that the Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards future loss of earnings taking the occupation of the deceased and he also submitted that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal was also incorrect and the claimants are also entitled for compensation under other conventional heads as fixed by the Apex Court.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company opposed the enhancement by contending that the Tribunal fixed the monthly earnings treating the deceased as a cook and such a fixation was done taking into consideration the lack of any evidence with regard to employer of the deceased who was allegedly employed in Mumbai and such a fixation was done considering the minimum wages payable for the relevant years considering the profession of the deceased as a cook.

¶23

It is also his contention that the compensation was awarded considering the law prevailing at the relevant time and on account of change of law, further principles were extended making the liability towards the future earnings and enhancement of amount towards conventional heads. According to him, the fixation of compensation by the Tribunal was just and proper and requires no enhancement.

[2023:RJ-JD:41806]

[CMA-661/2002]

(3 of 4)

A close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-1 who was father of the deceased shows that the deceased was a cook and he was working in Mumbai for the last 6 to 7 years. He was saving the amount of Rs.5,000/- after spending the expenditure. The evidence also shows that the deceased was 22 years of age and was unmarried. Absolutely, there is no evidence whether the deceased was employed on monthly basis or his salary was taken as a cook on intermittent period. The employer of the deceased was not examined and the claim that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- after expenditure was not supported by any corroborative evidence except the self-claim of the father of the deceased. The Tribunal accepted the profession of the deceased as a cook and the wages were fixed as Rs.2,100/- considering the minimum wages on account of lack of proper evidence with regard to actual amount received by him in Mumbai. Such a fixation does not suffer from any irregularities and requires no interference.

¶28

In the present case the deceased was aged 22 years and the same was accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not fixed any compensation towards loss of future earnings. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1270 , it is clearly laid down that when the deceased was privately or self-employed and he is below 40 years, minimum 40% of the earnings should be granted towards future loss of earnings.

¶29

In the present case, the monthly earning was fixed as Rs.2,100/-, 40% of Rs.2,100/- comes to Rs.840/-. The earning

[2023:RJ-JD:41806]

[CMA-661/2002]

(4 of 4)

comes to Rs.2,940/- per month (Rs.2,100/- + Rs.840/-). The annual earning comes to Rs.35,280/- (Rs.2,940/- x 12).

¶34

In the present case the deceased was bachelor and 50% should be deducted towards personal expenses and after deduction of 50% expenses, the annual earning comes to Rs.17,640/-.

¶35

The deceased was aged 22 years and the appropriate multiplier is 18. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier of 12 which is incorrect. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,17,520/-. 11. The Tribunal has granted Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which shall be Rs.15,000/- as held by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . The deceased was survived by his parents and the parents are entitled for filial consortium and they are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each (Rs.40,000/- x 2 = Rs.80,000/-). The total compensation arrives to Rs.4,12,520/(Rs.3,17,520/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.80,000/-).

¶36

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,42,600/- to Rs.4,12,520/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry an interest of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of deposition. The amount shall be deposited within 2 months from the date of this judgment.

¶37

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶38

5-BhumikaP/-

Deepar Ram and Anr. v. Narayan Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepar Ram and Anr. v. Narayan Singh and Anr.

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.

Smt.Patasi Vs Jaswant Singh

Khetaram Vs State

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