Partly allowed

Smt. Tara and Ors. v. Shanker Sharan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2024CMA/1002/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court enhanced compensation in a motor bike accident claim arising from rash and negligent driving. Court applied a multiplier of 17 instead of 18 and awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,84,200/- along with interest on income but exempted interest on specific heads based on recent precedent.

What did the court decide?

Award enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,84,200/- with 6% interest from filing date.

Smt. Tara and Ors. Vs Shanker Sharan and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:34082]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1002/2005

¶4

Smt. Tara w/o Late Shri Om Prakash

¶5

Ku. Pooja d/o Late Shri Om Prakash

¶6

Dheeraj s/o Late Shri Om Prakash

¶7

No. 2 and No. 3 are minors through their Natural Guardian, mother, Smt. Tara w/o Late Shri Om Prakash, r/o First Pole, Khatiko ka Bas, Mahamandir, Jodhpur

¶8

----Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Shanker Sharan, s/o Shri Mangla Ram, r/o Jassusar Gate, Bikaner at present Sarawati Nagar, C-14, Basni Jodhpur ----Owner of Premier Car No. RJ-19/C 6785

¶11

Babu Lal s/o Shri Arjun Ram, r/o Jhanjhar Madiya, P.S. Kherapa, at present resident of Sarawati Nagar, C-14, Basni Jodhpur

¶12

----Driver of Car No. RJ-19/C 6785

¶13

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Head Office New India Assurance Building, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai --- 400001, Branch Office Jodhpur

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. R.S. Mali
	Mr. Ravi Purohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Jagdish Vyas

¶16

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶17

Judgment

¶18

14/08/2024

¶19

The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,67,000/- awarded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Jodhpur (‘Tribunal’)

[2024:RJ-JD:34082]

[CMA-1002/2005]

(2 of 6)

vide judgment and award dated 05.03.2005 passed in Claim Case No. 134/2004.

¶24

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Late Shri Om Prakash (deceased), husband of appellant/claimant no. 1 died in a motor accident on 24.01.2001 on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent no. 2 of a Premier Car No. Rj-19/C 6785 which was owned by respondent no. 1 and was insured with respondent no. 3. Thereafter, the appellants/claimants filed a claim before the learned Tribunal which was allowed and the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. Rs. 4,67,000/- vide judgment and award dated 05.03.2005. Thus, aggrieved of the meagre amount of compensation being awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal erred in treating the income of deceased as Rs. 3,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/- per month and thus, this head needs to be reconsidered. He also submits that future prospects ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal since if the deceased would have survived, his income would have increased. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the appellant/claimant no. 1 and thus, the consortium needs to be reconsidered.

¶26

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submits that the multiplier of 18 has been wrongly applied by the learned Tribunal and instead a multiplier of 17 should have been applied since the deceased was of 28 years at the time of his death, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

[2024:RJ-JD:34082]

[CMA-1002/2005]

(3 of 6)

case of Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors .(15.04.2009 - SC): MANU/SC/0606/2009.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash and Ors. v. The Divisional Manager and Anr. reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639 , wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in the Court, after examining the facts and circumstances of a case, is empowered to determine a just compensation but it cannot reduce the award so passed by the learned Tribunal if the appeal is for enhancement. He thus prayed that the multiplier be taken in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra.) to award a just compensation in accordance with the law. The relevant part of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash (supra.) is reproduced as under:

¶32

“8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.”

[2024:RJ-JD:34082]

[CMA-1002/2005]

(4 of 6)

I have heard and considered the submissions advancedat bar and have gone through the impugned award.

¶37

There is no dispute on the factual matrix of the case. This Court finds force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that towards future prospects, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount, therefore, looking to the age of the deceased i.e., 28 years, as he was at the time of the accident, this Court is of the opinion that in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi : 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Sarla Verma (supra.), the compensation so awarded by the learned Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 05.03.2005 deserved to be modified under the heads of future prospects, consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. This Court also takes into consideration the contention of the learned counsel of the respondent that the multiplier of 17 ought to have been taken instead of 18 and thus, deems it fit to modify the award on the ground of multiplier being wrongly applied, without reducing the amount so awarded by the learned Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 05.03.2005.

¶38

Learned counsel for the parties were directed to submit the calculations after this Court arrived at a conclusion that the appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation inlight of the judgments Pranay Sethi (supra.) and Sarla Verma(supra.) , and the said calculations have been furnished to the Court. Thus, the compensation is enhanced as:

¶39

Income taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month Future Prospects taken as 40%, 40% of 3000 = 1200 Income now, Rs. 3000 + 1200 = Rs. 4,200/- per month Deductions @ 1/3rd, 1/3 of 4200= 1400/-,

[2024:RJ-JD:34082]

[CMA-1002/2005]

(5 of 6)

Income now, 4200- 1400 = Rs. 2800/- per month Applying a multiplier of 17, 2800x12x17 = Rs. 5,71,200/-

¶44

Taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,71,200/- as per the

¶45

calculations submitted by the learned counsel for the parties:

¶46

S.N o.	Particulars	Amount awar Tribunal	ded by the	Amount awarded bythe Court
1.	Income	Rs. 4,32,000/-		Rs. 5,71,200/-
2.	Loss of Consortium (48,000 x 3 = 1,44,000)	Rs. 10,000/- sufferings) + Rs. 10,000/- ( and affection) Rs. 10,000/- matrimonial h	(pain and loss of love + (loss of appiness)	Rs. 1,44,000/-
3.	Loss of Estate	Not awarded		Rs. 18,000/-
4.	Funeral Expenses	Rs. 5,000/-		Rs. 18,000/-
	Gross Total	Rs. 4,67,000/-		Rs. 7,51,200/-
	Enhanced amount		Rs. 2,84,20	0/-

¶47

Accordingly, in view of above discussion and calculations submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant misc. appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant is allowed in part. The appellants/claimants are thus held entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,84,200/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal stands modified accordingly. The respondents/nonclaimants are directed to pay the said amount along with the interest from the date of filing of claim petition to the appellants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which the claimants shall be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount. This court also observes that in view of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rasal Kanwar Vs. Harish Chand : [S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1099/2019, decided on 20.03.2024] that the amount awarded under the heads of loss of estate, loss of

[2024:RJ-JD:34082]

[CMA-1002/2005]

(6 of 6)

consortium & love and affection and funeral expenses shall not carry any interest as the same already comprises of a 10% increase for every three years as has been directed by the Apex

¶52

Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) .

¶53

Any amount already paid by the respondents shall be adjusted towards the amount finally awarded by this Court. 11. Record be sent back forthwith. No costs.

¶54

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶55

237-/ajayS/-

Smt. Tara and Ors. v. Shanker Sharan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tara and Ors. v. Shanker Sharan 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

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Santosh Kumar Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindra Kumar @ Parvindra Vs State of Rajasthan

Vardha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Prabhu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Bumb Vs State of Rajasthan