Partly allowed

Mahima Devi v. J v v N L and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2024CFA/512/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First appeal by claimant challenging compensation award in fatal accident suit. Court found trial court erred in personal expense deduction, future prospects percentage, and awards for consortium and loss of estate. Appealed compensation enhanced from Rs. 7,07,192 to Rs. 10,73,968. Appeal partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded. Respondents directed to deposit Rs. 3,66,776 with trial court within two months with interest at 7.5% p.a.

Mahima Devi Vs J v v N L and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:49719]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 512/2018

¶4

Mahima Devi W/o Lt. Prahalad, R/o Village Jandu Ki Dhani, Post Gidani, Tehsil Mojmabad, Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur Rajasthan

¶5

---Claimant-Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vidhyut Bhawan, Vidyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Through Cmd.

¶8

Chief Engineer Oandm, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Purana Power House Road Ram Mandir, Station Road, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶9

Executive Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Dudu, District Jaipur Rajasthan

¶10

Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam, Limited, Dudu District Jaipur Rajasthan

¶11

Defendant/Respondents

¶12

Shiv Narayan S/o Kanaram, R/o Village Jandu Ki Dhani, Palu Kala, Post Gidani, Tehsil Mojmabad, Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur Deceaseds Father

¶13

Nanudi Devi W/o Shiv Narayan, R/o Village Jandu Ki Dhani, Palu Kala, Post Gidani, Tehsil Mojmabad, Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur. Deceased Mother

¶14

---Proforma-Respondents

¶15

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Yadav, Adv.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶17

Judgment

¶18

Date Of Judgment 04/12/2024

¶19

The present appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-claimant (for short ’the claimant’) dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan,

¶20

(2 of 5) [CFA-512/2018]

¶21

[2024:RJ-JP:49719]

¶22

Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in fatal accident suit No.530/2014, whereby the trial court has awarded a sum of Rs.7,07,192/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the suit in favour of the claimant.

¶23

The trial court on the basis of the pleading of the parties, framed the issues and evaluated the evidence on record. After hearing counsel for the parties, decided the suit of the claimant and awarded the amount as indicated above.

¶24

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the trial court has committed an error in awarding the compensation amount of Rs.7,07,192/- only in favour of the claimant. The trial court has not appreciated the evidence led by both the parties in the right perspective. Learned counsel for the claimant also submits that the trial court has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,980/- per month. The deceased was working on the post of clerk in Vinayak Public School, Gram Rahlana, Tehsil dudu, District Jaipur and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. So, income of the deceased be calculated as Rs. 10,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimant further submits that the trial court has wrongly deducted 1/2nd amount from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, whereas it should be 1/3rd because the deceased was married and respondent Nos.5 and 6 are his parents and they are also dependent on him. Learned counsel for the claimant also submits that the trial Court has wrongly awarded 25% towards future prospects, whereas as per age of the deceased i.e. 21 years, it should be 40% of the deceased’s income. The trial court has awarded very meagre amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas it

[2024:RJ-JP:49719]

[CFA-512/2018]

(3 of 5)

should be Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the claimant and Rs.40,000/- towards love and affection to each of the respondent Nos.5 and 6. Learned counsel for the claimant further submits that the trial court has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. So, judgment and decree passed by the trial court may be modified accordingly.

¶29

Learned counsel for the defendants-respondents (for short ‘the defendants’) has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimant and submitted that the claimant failed to adduce any cogent evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. So, the trial court has rightly assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.166/- per day (166X30= Rs.4,980/per month) on the basis of minimum wages prevailing at the relevant point of time for an unskilled labour. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the claimant is only dependent on the deceased. Respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are parents of the deceased, had not appeared before the trial court and the claimant had impleaded them as a proforma-respondents. So, they are not dependent on the deceased and not entitled to get any amount towards loss of love and affection. So, the trial court has rightly awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium to the claimant. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimant as well as learned counsel for the defendants.

¶31

It is an admitted position that the claimant had not submitted any cogent evidence that the deceased was working on

[2024:RJ-JP:49719]

[CFA-512/2018]

(4 of 5)

the post of clerk in Vinayak Public School, Gram Rahlana, Tehsil dudu, District Jaipur and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has rightly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.4,980/- per month on the basis of minimum wages prevailing at the relevant point of time for an unskilled labour but the trial court has committed an error in deducting 1/2nd amount from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, whereas it should be 1/3rd. The trial Court has also committed an error in awarding 25% towards future prospects, whereas as per age of the deceased i.e. 21 years, it should be 40% of the income of the deceased. The trial court has awarded very meagre amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/-. Since the respondent Nos.5 and 6 had not appeared before the trial court. So, they are not entitled to get any amount towards love and affection. The trial court has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. So, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is modified to the extent as under:-

¶36

Total income for unskilled labour on the basis of minimum wages prevailed at the relevant point of time (monthly) (166X30)

¶37

Rs.4,980/-

¶38

Annual Income	4,980X12= Rs.59,760/-
1/3 is to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased	59,760 – 19,920=Rs.39,840/-
According to the age of the deceased i.e. 21 years, Multiplier 18 to be applied	39,840 X 18= Rs.7,17,120/-
Add 40% towards future prospects	7,17,120+2,86,848= Rs.10,03,968/-

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:49719]

[CFA-512/2018]

Loss of consortium to claimant Rs.40,000/-
Funeral expenses (+) 15,000/-
Loss of Estate (+) 15,000/-
Total Rs.10,73,968/-
Less amount awarded by the trial court Rs.7,07,192/-
Enhanced Amount of compensation 10,73,968-7,07,192=
Rs.3,66,776/-

¶43

In view of the above, the claimant is entitled to get a further sum of Rs.3,66,776/- as compensation. The defendants are directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.3,66,776/(10,73,968-7,07,192) with the trial court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On deposition of the said amount, the claimant shall be entitled to withdrawn the same. The enhanced amount shall carry @ 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of suit till the actual payment is made.

¶44

Rest part of the impugned judgment and decree shall remain unchanged. Impugned judgment and decree is modified accordingly.

¶45

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶46

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

¶47

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶48

Gourav/118

Mahima Devi v. J v v N L and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahima Devi v. J v v N L and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajandei @ Rajkumari D/O Shri Roshan W/O Shri Vinod Giri Vs Rakesh Kumar S/O Shri Roshan

Charansingh Son of Shri Jagram Vs Pratap Singh Son of Shri Jagram

International Society for Krishnaiskcon Vs M/S Kriti Builders and Developers

Lalit Kumar Maha Jan Vs Santosh Khandelwal

Smt. Vishnu Kanwar W/O Goving Singh, Vs Dr. Monika Maheshwari

Kalyan Vs State Revenu Departmentors