Partly allowed

Radha Bai and Ors. v. Raghunath and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Oct 2023CMA/668/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, enhanced compensation awarded in a motor accident case. The Court applied Supreme Court precedents to augment income calculation for future prospects, consortium, funeral, and estate loss, directing the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Order modified; compensation enhanced to Rs. 10,57,200 with 8% interest from date of filing claim petition until payment.

Radha Bai and Ors. Vs Raghunath and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:27668]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 668/2017

¶4

Radha Bai aged about 24 years, W/o Mahesh Sahriya, R/o Mamoni, Tehsil Shahbad, District Baran Raj.

¶5

Gyani Chand aged about 49 years, S/o Dojya Sahriya, R/o Mamoni, Tehsil Shahbad, District Baran Raj.

¶6

Smt. Lila Bai W/o aged about 47 years Gyani Chand Sahriya, R/o Mamoni, Tehsil Shahbad, District Baran Raj.

¶7

----Appellants/Claimants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Raghunath aged about 47 years, S/o Jagannath, R/o Gram-Dhikoniya, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Baran Raj. [Driver]

¶10

Gopal Singh aged about 41 years S/o Amar Singh, R/o Amba Colony, Madanganj- Kishangarh, District Ajmer Raj. [Owner]

¶11

Arvind Mehta aged about 34 years S/o Ramdayal Mehta, R/o Gram Mamni, Tehsil Shahbad, District Baran Raj. [Owner]

¶12

Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office-C-16, Vaishali Nagar, Annasagar Road, Ajmer Raj. [Insurance Company]

¶13

----Respondents/Non-claimants

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha (for Insurance Company)

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶16

Order

¶17

07/10/2023

¶18

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 25.02.2016 passed by Judge, Motor

¶19

(2 of 6) [CMA-668/2017]

¶20

[2023:RJ-JP:27668]

¶21

Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in MAC Case No.31/2012, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,23,000/- to the claimants-appellants.

¶22

The claimants-appellants filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.36,83,000/-. 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.

¶23

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 25.02.2016, the claimants-appellants filed this miscellaneous appeal for suitable enhancement of the amount awarded as compensation by learned Tribunal.

¶24

Brief facts of this case are that on 22.11.2011, one Mahesh was travelling as Khalasi in a Matador bearing registration No. RJ37-GA-0059 when the driver of the aforesaid Matador drove it in a rash and negligent manner and resultantly, the vehicle collided with the divider due to which, Mahesh sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, died.

¶25

Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contended that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award, has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- on the date of accident. The respondent-Insurance Company has not challenged this finding of learned Tribunal.

(3 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JP:27668]

[CMA-668/2017]

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 22 years of age at time of accident and, therefore, the claimants-appellants are entitled for 40% future prospects.

¶30

Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that under other conventional heads also, a meagre amount has been awarded to the claimants-appellants and therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award may be suitably enhanced in favour of the claimants-appellants.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award and contended that there is no merit in this appeal and the same be dismissed.

¶32

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

¶33

Learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment has observed that no evidence was produced to prove that the deceased, by doing Khalasi work was earning Rs.7,500/- per month at the time of accident. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/-.

¶34

Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of future prospects. This Court finds that the deceased was 22 years of age at time of accident and therefore, increment of 40% as to the future prospects, as per the direction given by the

(4 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JP:27668]

[CMA-668/2017]

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.4,500/- + 40% (Rs.1,800/-) future prospects = Rs.6,300/- per month.

¶39

It is an admitted fact that the deceased is survived by his wife and parents. Therefore, 1/3 part of the income of the deceased is to be deducted under the head of personal expenses. After such deduction, the net income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.6,300/- divided by 3 = Rs.2,100/- and total Rs.6,300 – 2,100 = Rs.4,200/- per month.

¶40

The age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of accident, thus as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) the multiplier of 18 is applicable in this case. Now, applying the multiplier of 18, total amount quantified loss of dependency comes out to be Rs.4,200/- X 12 X 18 = Rs.9,07,200/-.

¶41

Learned Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection to the claimants-appellants. 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.1wife of the deceased is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- under the head of spousal consortium, appellant Nos.2 and 3, who are parents of

¶42

(5 of 6) [CMA-668/2017]

¶43

[2023:RJ-JP:27668]

¶44

the deceased are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each under the head of filial consortium.

¶45

Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses, however, as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), it needs to be Rs.15,000/-.

¶46

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.

¶47

So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under:

¶48

1.	Loss of Annual Income (as per the age of the deceased, multiplier of 18).	Rs.4,200/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.9,07,200/-
2.	Under the head of Spousal Consortium, Parental Consortium and Filial Consortium	Rs.40,000/- (to each appellants) = Total Rs.1,20,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-
4.	Loss of estate	Rs.15,000/-
5.	Total amount of compensation	Rs.10,57,200/-
6.	Less amount awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.7,23,000/-
7.	Enhanced amount of compensation	(Rs.10,57,200/- - Rs.7,23,000/-) = Rs.3,34,200/-

¶49

In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award dated 25.02.2016 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The claimants-appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.10,57,200/- 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

(6 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JP:27668]

[CMA-668/2017]

certified copy of this order. After deposition of the said amount, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same in terms of the award. The enhanced amount shall carry 8% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made.

¶54

The other terms and conditions of the impugned judgment and award shall remain the same.

¶55

Consequently, this miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed.

¶56

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

¶57

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶58

AARZOO ARORA /56

Radha Bai and Ors. v. Raghunath and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Bai and Ors. v. Raghunath 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

Smt Birma Devi and Ors. Vs Manoj Kumar and Ors.

Jumma through Lrs and Others Vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Manbhar @ Bhagoti and Ors. Vs Shakir Hasan and Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pukhraj Jain and Others

Smt Sangeeta and Others Vs Tejpal and Others

Ramswaroop Sharma Vs Abdul Wahid and Ors.