Partly allowed

Ram Chandra Bugalia S/O Govindaram, v. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Rajasthan HC5 Sept 2024CFA/210/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This first appeal against a death compensation decree was partly allowed. The High Court modified the trial court's award by recalculating loss of income based on 30 days and granting Rs. 40,000 for loss of consortium to each of the two appellants, raising the total compensation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified; compensation increased to Rs. 10,76,168/- comprising recalculated loss of income, Rs. 80,000 for loss of consortium, and expenses.

Ram Chandra Bugalia S/O Govindaram, Vs Ajmer… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:37646]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 210/2023

¶4

Ram Chandra Bugalia S/o Govindaram, Aged About 45 Years, Resident of Village Rulyani Tehsil Lakshmangarh, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).

¶5

Sohani Devi W/o Ram Chandra Bugalia, Aged About 41 Years, Resident of Village Rulyani Tehsil Lakshmangarh, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).

¶6

----Plaintiffs-Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited through Assistant Engineer (O & M) Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Dhod, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar (Raj.).

¶9

Superintending Engineer(Vi.su.), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Near Sabalpura Power House, Sikar (Raj.).

¶10

Chairman, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer (Raj.).

¶11

----Defendants-Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s)

¶13

: Mr. Akshat Choudhary, Advocate : Mr. Bhawani Shankar Sharma, Adv. for Mrs. Parinitoo Jain, Advocate

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order

¶15

05/09/2024 :

¶16

The present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred on behalf of the appellantsplaintiff (for short ‘the appellants’) against the judgment & decree dt.18.11.2022 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Laxmangarh, District Sikar, in Civil Original Suit (Fatal) No.108/2019 whereby the ld. Trial Court had awarded a sum of Rs.9,14,216/alongwith interest @ 6% per annum as compensation from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 10.01.2019 in favour of the appellants.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that at the time of alleged incident, the deceased was 22 years of age &

[2024:RJ-JP:37646]

[CFA-210/2023]

(2 of 4)

working as an agriculturist. Counsel further contends that the ld. Trial Court, while treating the deceased as ‘Unskilled Worker’ has wrongly calculated his income for 26-days, whereas it should be for 30-days. Counsel also contends that the ld. Trial Court has wrongly awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/- towards consortium, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- per claimant, hence, the judgment & decree of the ld. Trial Court may be modified.

¶22

In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanuram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and in New India Assurance Company & Others Vs. Somwati & Others, MANU/SC/0674/2020, wherein reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’ held to be Rs.15,000/-, 40,000/each & Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. The parents, wife and children of the deceased are also entitled to get the award under the head of ‘loss of consortium’.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondentsdefendants has opposed the submissions made herein-above and submitted that the finding of the ld. Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality & prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions made at bar, gone through the judgment & decree passed by ld. Trial Court & perused the judgments cited herein above.

¶25

Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Laxmidhar Nayak & Others Vs. Jugalkishore & Others, 2018 (1) R.A.R. 45 S.C . and in

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:37646]

[CFA-210/2023]

Laxmidevi & Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Others, 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 S.C., has also held that the wages/income of the deceased should be calculated for 30-days.

¶30

As per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), ld. Trial Court had already awarded Rs.8,37,216/- towards ‘loss of income’ and Rs.77,000/- (Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- & Rs.15,000/-) towards ‘‘loss of consortium’ & ‘funeral expenses’ etc.) while enhancing thereto @ 10% in terms of aforesaid judgment.

¶31

In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Laxmidhar Nayak (supra), Laxmidevi (supra), Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (Supra) & Somwati (supra), the appellants are entitled to get Rs.9,66,168 (213x30x12x140/100x18x½) towards ‘loss of income’ by calculating it for 30-days, Rs.40,000/- each towards ‘loss of consortium’, Rs.15,000/towards ‘funeral expenses’ & Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’.

¶32

On the basis of the aforesaid facts & analysis, this Court is of the opinion that the just compensation to be awarded to both the appellants under the aforesaid heads ought to have been as under:-

¶33

Loss of Income =Rs.9,66,168/3. Loss of consortium =Rs.80,000/-(Rs.40,000/-x2) 4. Loss of Estate =Rs.15,000/5. Funeral Expenses =Rs.15,000/-

¶34

Total Rs.10,76,168/-

¶35

In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned award dated 18.11.2022 is liable to be modified as above and both the appellants are entitled to be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10,76,168/- instead of Rs.9,14,216/- alongwith interest 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition as per the terms of ld. trial Court. The compensation amount received by the appellants-in

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:37646]

[CFA-210/2023]

pursuant to the award dt.18.11.2022 passed by ld. Trial Court shall be adjusted in the present judgment & award and the appellants are entitled to receive the remaining amount.

¶40

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶41

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶42

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶43

ASHOK/

Ram Chandra Bugalia S/O Govindaram, v. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chandra Bugalia S/O Govindaram, v. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited

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

Waseem Hashmi S/O Sh. Taki Hashmi Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors. Vs Abid Hussain

Jagdish S/O Chhitarlal Vs Nenga S/O Bhagchand

Alimuddin Qureshi S/O Rafikuddin Qureshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Gocher @ Anil Gurjar @ Annu Gurjar S/O Ganesh Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishram @ Vikram S/O Pooransingh Vs State of Rajasthan