Partly allowed

Smt. Meenakshi Devi W/O Lt. Mahendra Kumar Joshi, v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Rajasthan HC10 Sept 2024CFA/774/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal regarding death compensation, the High Court modified the trial court's award. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court held the income should be calculated for 30 days and adjusted consortium amounts, raising the total compensation to Rs.10,94,240/-.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award is modified; appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.10,94,240/- along with 7.5% per annum interest from the date of filing.

Smt. Meenakshi Devi W/O Lt. Mahendra Kumar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:38447]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 774/2018

¶4

Smt. Meenakshi Devi W/o Lt. Mahendra Kumar Joshi, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Manda, Tan Panchpahadi, Tehsil Kotputli, Thana-Pragpura, Dist-Jaipur

¶5

Naveen Kumar S/o Lt. Mahendra Kumar Joshi, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Manda, Tan Panchpahadi, Tehsil Kotputli, Thana-Pragpura, Dist-Jaipur

¶6

Arpit Kumar S/o Lt. Mahendra Kumar Joshi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Manda, Tan Panchpahadi, Tehsil Kotputli, Thana-Pragpura, Dist-Jaipur

¶7

Ankit Kumar S/o Lt. Mahendra Kumar Joshi, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Manda, Tan Panchpahadi, Tehsil Kotputli, Thana-Pragpura, Dist-Jaipur

¶8

Kumari Pinki D/o Lt. Mahendra Kumar Joshi, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Manda, Tan Panchpahadi, Tehsil Kotputli, Thana-Pragpura, Dist-Jaipur

¶9

----Claimants-Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

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

¶12

Junior Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Kotputli, Dist-Jaipur

¶13

----Defendants-Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None present

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order

¶16

10/09/2024 :

¶17

The present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred on behalf of the claimantsappellants (for short ‘the appellants’) against the impugned judgment & decree dt.19.12.2017 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, in Civil Suit No.32/2016 whereby the ld. Trial Court had awarded a sum of Rs.7,40,808/- alongwith interest @ 7.5%

[2024:RJ-JP:38447]

[CFA-774/2018]

(2 of 4)

per annum as compensation from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 25.02.2016 in favour of the appellants.

¶22

The appellants instituted a civil suit for damages on account of death of one Mahendra Kumar Joshi, who died on 12.09.2015 due to electrocution.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that at the time of alleged incident, the deceased was 50 years of age & 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 ld. Trial Court has wrongly awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.60,000/- towards consortium, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- per claimant. Counsel also contends that ld. Trial Court has not properly considered the income, dependency & loss of estate of the deceased. Counsel submits that ld. Trial Court has not been taken into consideration the overall assessment of compensation, which is highly unreasonable & against well settled law governing quantum of compensation, hence, the impugned judgment & decree of the ld. Trial Court may be modified.

¶24

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, Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Others, AIR 2009 SC 3104 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’ & ‘funeral expenses’

¶25

(3 of 4) [CFA-774/2018]

¶26

[2024:RJ-JP:38447]

¶27

held to be Rs.15,000/-, 40,000/- each claimant & Rs.15,000/respectively and the deduction on account of dependency held to be 1/4th where the number of dependents are 4 to 6. The parents, wife and children of the deceased are also entitled to get the award under the head of ‘loss of consortium’.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Laxmidhar Nayak & Others Vs. Jugalkishore & Others, 2018 (1) R.A.R. 45 S.C . and in Laxmidevi & Others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Others, 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 S.C., while dealing with the controversy of the income of the deceased had calculated the total income for 30-days.

¶31

The ld. Trial Court had awarded Rs.6,65,808/- towards ‘loss of income’, Rs.60,000/- & Rs.15,000/- towards ‘‘loss of consortium’ & ‘funeral expenses’.

¶32

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.8,64,240/towards ‘loss of income’ by calculating it for 30-days, Rs.40,000/- each claimant towards ‘loss of consortium’, Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’ & Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:38447]

[CFA-774/2018]

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

¶37

Loss of Income =Rs.8,64,240/3. Loss of consortium =Rs.2,00,000/-(Rs.40,000/-x5) 4. Loss of Estate =Rs.15,000/5. Funeral Expenses =Rs.15,000/-

¶38

Total Rs.10,94,240/-

¶39

In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned award dated 19.12.2017 is liable to be modified as above and the appellants are entitled to be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10,94,240/- instead of Rs.7,40,808/- alongwith interest 7.5% 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 pursuant to the award dt.19.12.2017 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/

Smt. Meenakshi Devi W/O Lt. Mahendra Kumar Joshi, v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meenakshi Devi W/O Lt. Mahendra Kumar Joshi, v. Jaipur Vidyut 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

Vimlesh W/O Lakhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Fundi W/O Late Shree Gheesa Vs Smt. Chanda W/O Shree Abzi

Moti S/O Late Shri Mahadev Vs Sushma Saini Wife of Hari Singh Saini

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs Rajo Devi

Smt Shiv Devi Kaushal Vs Smt Seema Devi

Bindraj S/O Gokul and Gokul Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan