Partly allowed

Rasal Kanwar v. Harish Chand

Rajasthan HC20 Mar 2024CMA/1099/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a motor accident claim appeal partly, modifying the Tribunal's award. It held that without documentary proof, the deceased's income must be assessed based on minimum skilled wages. The court enhanced the loss of consortium amount for each dependent by 10% per three years from 2017 adjustments.

What did the court decide?

The award is enhanced by Rs. 96,000/- specifically under the head of 'loss of consortium' at Rs. 48,000/- per dependent. The total amended compensation is fixed at Rs. 8,57,160/-.

Rasal Kanwar Vs Harish Chand — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:13187]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1099/2019

¶4

Rasal Kanwar W/o Shri Ganga Singh, Aged About 57 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Bhatner Nagar, Biramgarh, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur.

¶5

Ganga Singh S/o Shri Lal Singh, Aged About 59 Years, B/ c Rajput, R/o Bhatner Nagar, Biramgarh, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur.

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Harish Chand S/o Shri Phool Chand Khatri, B/c Khatri, R/o Peelwa, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur. (Driver Of Vehicle No. Rj-19-Ce-2854)

¶9

Kailash S/o Shri Rajuram, B/c Khatri, R/o Sutharo Ki Dhaniya, Nagsinghpura, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur. (Owner Of Vehicle No. Rj-19-Ce-2854)

¶10

National Insurance Company Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Rj-19-Ce-2854)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Avinash Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jagdish Chandra Vyas

¶13

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶14

Order

¶15

20/03/2024

¶16

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 24.01.2019 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-First, Jodhpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.313/2014 (NCV No.3169/2014) whereby an award for an amount of Rs.7,61,160/- with interest @ 9% per annum has been passed in favour of the claimants who are mother and father of the deceased.

[2024:RJ-JD:13187]

[CMA-1099/2019]

(2 of 6)

Learned counsel for the claimants submits that there is ample evidence available on record to show that the deceased was engaged in the furniture making work and earned Rs.16,000/- per month. Therefore, the income ought to have been computed @ Rs.16,000/- per month.

¶21

Learned counsel further submits that the deduction of half of the income qua personal expenses ought not to have been made and it ought to have been one-third as the claimants-dependants are mother and father of the deceased.

¶22

At the inception, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company fairly admitted that the amount qua head of consortium has not been granted by the learned Tribunal and the award deserves interference only to that extent. He however, submitted that so far as the amount awarded qua the other heads and the loss of income is concerned, the computation as made by learned Tribunal is perfectly in consonance with law and the same does not deserve any interference.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record. 5. On the ground that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,836/- per month as per the minimum wages of a skilled labour prevailing at that point of time, this Court is of the opinion that it is clear from a bare perusal of statements of AW-1 Smt. Rasal Kanwar, the mother of deceased (claimant No.1), that although she deposed that her son earned Rs.16,000/- per month but then she specifically admitted that she was not aware as to where her son worked at Pune. She further admitted that her son worked as per

[2024:RJ-JD:13187]

[CMA-1099/2019]

(3 of 6)

orders and was not a regular employee. Further, no documentary evidence pertaining to the work/business of the deceased or his income has been placed on record. Hence, the claimantsappellants have failed to prove the income of the deceased to be Rs.16,000/- per month.

¶28

The issue of assessment of income for calculation of compensation when there is no definite proof of income on record has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of cases.

¶29

The case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others; (2018) 18 SCC 130 would be of relevance, wherein it was held as under:

¶30

“8.3. With respect to the income of the deceased, as the family could not produce any evidence to show that the income of the deceased was Rs.15,000/- per month, as claimed, the High Court took his income to be Rs.6000/-, which is marginally above the minimum wage of an unskilled worker at Rs.5342. This finding is also not being interfered with.’’

¶31

In the case of Manusha Sree kumar and Ors. vs. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; AIR 2022 SC 5161, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

¶32

“19…...This Court in Chandra Alias Chanda Alias Chandraram and Anr. vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Ors., (2022) 1 SCC 198, has aptly held that in the absence of a salary certificate, the minimum wages notification along with some amount of guesswork that is not completely

(4 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:13187]

[CMA-1099/2019]

detached from reality shall act as a yardstick to determine the income of the deceased.”

¶37

In the opinion of this Court, as the deceased was engaged in furniture making work, the computation of income on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled labour by the learned Tribunal, is totally in consonance with the ratio as laid down in the aforesaid judgments and the settled position of law.

¶38

Regarding the issue qua amount to be awarded under the head of consortium, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and Ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680 has fixed the amount payable under the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses to be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance (Supra) interpreted ‘consortium’ to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filial consortium.

¶39

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the amount of Rs.40,000/- is to be awarded under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ to each of the dependants. Further, the said amount deserves to be enhanced at the rate of 10% every three years from the date of judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra) i.e. 2017 and therefore, the amount to be awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium’ would be Rs.48,000/-.

¶40

On the above analysis, the amount under the conventional heads, after enhancement, is modified as under: Loss of estate: Rs.15,000/ -;

(5 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:13187]

[CMA-1099/2019]

Loss of consortium: Rs.48,000/- to each dependent; Funeral expenses: Rs.15,000 /-.

¶45

So far as the deduction of half of the income qua personal expenses is concerned, the deceased being unmarried, the same is in consonance with the guidelines as laid in Pranay Sethi (Supra).

¶46

Therefore, the computation qua loss of income and other heads except the amount of consortium as made by the learned Tribunal does not deserve any interference.

¶47

In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated 24.01.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.313/2014 (NCV No.3169/2014) is modified to the extent as under:

¶48

1. Income per month (after adding future prospects @40% and deduction towards personal and living expenses 1/2 in the monthly income of Rs.4,836/-)	Rs.3,385/-
2. Loss of Annual Income (as per the age of the deceased to be 22 years, multiplier of 18).	Rs.3,385 x 12 x 18 = Rs.7,31,160/-
3. Under the head of ‘loss of estate’	Rs.15,000/-
4. Under the head of ‘consortium’	Rs.48,000/- to each dependant (2) Total: Rs.96,000/-
5. Under the head of ‘Funeral	Rs.15,000/-

(6 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:13187]

[CMA-1099/2019]

expenses’
6. Total amount of compensation	Rs.8,57,160/-
7. Amount awarded by the Tribunal.	Rs.7,61,160/-
8. Enhanced amount of compensation	Rs.96,000/-

¶53

The amount awarded vide this judgment qua the head of consortium shall not carry any interest as the same already comprises of a 10% increase for every three years and hence, has been computed to be Rs.48,000/-.

¶54

The respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of enhanced compensation and the amount already awarded by the learned Tribunal, if not paid yet, with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The enhanced amount, if not deposited within the said period, shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization.

¶55

Upon deposition, learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the claimants in terms of the award.

¶56

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶57

658-SPhophaliya/devanshi/-

Rasal Kanwar v. Harish Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasal Kanwar v. Harish Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamla Ben Vs Jitendra Banjara

Smt. Sajjan Kanwar and Ors. Vs Hanuman Sahai and Ors.

Smt.Heeraben @ Mohan Ben Vs Sagar and Ors.

Nikhil Taneja Vs N. Suresh

Kanji Vs Dinesh Kumar Meena

Marwar Muslim Education and Welfare Society Vs Fazlurrahaman