Partly allowed

Smt. Ratanbala and Ors. v. Ramchandra and Ors.

Rajasthan HC16 Jul 2024CMA/1661/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed in part appeals filed by claimants against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awards. The Court enhanced compensation by applying correct multipliers based on age and salaries, adjoined heads for funeral and estate losses, and fixed interest at 6% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Tribual awards modified; enhanced compensation awarded; interest fixed at 6% p.a. with 7.5% thereafter if payment delayed beyond three months.

Smt. Ratanbala and Ors. Vs Ramchandra and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:29382]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1115/2004

¶4

Smt. Ghisi Bai, w/o Kanhyalal Sharma, ages 45 years,

¶5

Shri Kanhyalal, s/o Badrilal Sharma, aged 50 years,

¶6

Shri Pukhraj, s/o Kanhyalal Sharma, minor through appellant no.01

¶7

All residents of Bhagwan pura, Tehsil Mandal, District, Bhilwara.

¶8

----Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Ram Chandra, s/o Gheesa Mali, resident of Hurda, P.S. Gulabpura, District Bhilwara.

¶11

Sh. Ramdayal, s/o Gheesa Mali, resident of Hurda, P.S. Gulabpura, District Bhilwara.

¶12

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhupal Ganj, Bhilwara.

¶13

Sh. Lahrishankar, s/o Mohanlal Sharma, resident of Assind, District Bhilwara.

¶14

Sh. Budhi Prakesh, s/o Shyam Bihari Sharma, resident of Gandhi Chowk, Aasind, District Bhilwara.

¶15

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Bhilwara.

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

Connected With

¶18

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1661/2004

¶19

Smt. Ratanbala, w/o, Bhagchand Jain.

¶20

Kumari Jyoti, d/o Bhagchand Jain.

¶21

Ashish, s/o Bhagchand Jain.

¶22

All residents of 23/530, Neelkanth Mahadevi Colony, Solanki Takies Road, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara Appellant-claimant no. 3 Ashish is minor through his natural guardian and mother Smt. Ratanbala.

¶23

----Appellant-claimants

¶24

Versus

¶25

Ramchandra, s/o Gheesalal Mali, r/o Nagar Road, Hurda Tehsil, Hurda, District Bhilwara.

¶26

Ramdayal, s/o Gheesalal Mali, r/o Nagar Road, Hurda Tehsil, Hurda, District Bhilwara.

¶27

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional

¶28

(2 of 16) [CMA-1115/2004]

¶29

[2024:RJ-JD:29382]

¶30

Office, Bhilwara

¶31

Lehari Shankar s/o Mohanlal Sharma, r/o Asind Tehsil, Asind Tehsil, Asind District Bhilwara.

¶32

Budhi Prakash, s/o Shyam Bihari Sharma, r/o Gandhi Chowk, Asind, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara.

¶33

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Bhilwara.

¶34

----Respondent

¶35

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas.

¶36

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶37

Judgment / Order

¶38

16/07/2024

¶39

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1115/2004

¶40

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’), seeking enhancement of the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (‘Tribunal’), wherein the learned Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 1,90,000/- and the contributory negligence has been ascertained of the driver the and deceased, to be 50% each, vide order dated 20.03.2004. The appellants have also sought interest to be awarded at the rate of 12% on the award and judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, from the date of filing the petition. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 6/10/2000, Mahavir Sharma, the brother and son of claimant Pukhraj and the Kanhaiya Lal, died in a motor vehicle accident. At the time of the accident, the deceased Mahavir was 19 years old. He worked in the textiles market in Bhilwara, grading clothes on a retail and

[2024:RJ-JD:29382]

[CMA-1115/2004]

(3 of 16)

contract basis, earning a monthly income of ₹5,000. The accident involved two vehicles: a trailer with registration number HR55/2445 and a bus with registration number RJ-09-P-1405. The trailer was owned by respondent No.1 and was insured by respondent No.3, and was driven by respondent No.2. The bus was owned by respondent No.4, was insured by respondent No.6, and driven by respondent No.5. The incident occurred around 5:15 PM near the Ajmer Tiraha on the Bhilwara-Ajmer Highway. Mahavir was standing at a passenger waiting area when the trailer, driven recklessly and negligently, collided with the bus, which was also driven recklessly. Due to the drivers' negligence, both vehicles lost control and veered off towards the waiting area, crushing Mahavir under the trailer's wheels, resulting in his immediate death. The appellants/claimants requested for a compensation of ₹6,10,000/while indicating the negligence of the drivers involved in the accident.

¶45

The respondent No.3 - Oriental Insurance Company while filing response to the claim petition had acknowledged the ownership and insurance status of the trailer. It was claimed that the drivers involved did not possess valid and effective driving licenses at the time of the accident. It was argued that the accident was not caused by the trailer driver’s fault, but due to the negligence and carelessness of the other vehicle. The respondent No.3 denied all other allegations and requested the claim to be dismissed.

¶46

The Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 while filing response to the claim petition have accepted the ownership and insurance status of the bus. It was asserted that the bus driver did not drive

[2024:RJ-JD:29382]

[CMA-1115/2004]

(4 of 16)

negligently or carelessly and was not at fault. It was also contended that the accident occurred due to the trailer driver’s fault. It was argued that since the vehicle was insured with Respondent No.6, the responsibility for compensation lies with the insurance company. The respondents No.4 & 5 have denied all other allegations and requested the claim be dismissed.

¶51

The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while filing reply to the claim petition have acknowledged the ownership of the trailer. It was claimed that the accident was caused by the bus driver’s fault, not the trailer driver’s. It was requested that the claim be dismissed against them.

¶52

The Respondent No.6 - New India Insurance Company in its reply has accepted that the bus was insured by them. It was argued that the accident was caused by the trailer driver’s fault and not the bus driver’s. It was also claimed that the drivers did not have valid and effective driving licenses at the time of the accident. The Insurance company have denied all other allegations and requested the claim be dismissed.

¶53

On December 21, 2002, an interim award of ₹50,000 was granted in favor of the claimants and liability was fastened upon the respondents jointly and severally.

¶54

The claimants in their support evidenced statements of A.D.1- Kanhaiyalal and documentary evidence was presented from Exhibit No.1 to 8 and no evidence was produced.

¶55

After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal framed issues, including:

¶56

“1] आयावि�.स.1 के्ቭ ावि�्቙ ए�ंवि�.स.3 केपासबीवि�त�ाहनट्रक ट्रोलाएच.आर. 56-2445 तथाआयावि�.स.4 के्ቭ ावि�्቙ �वि�.स.6

(5 of 16)

[2024:RJ-JD:29382]

[CMA-1115/2004]

केपासबीवि�त�ाहनबसआर.जे.००पी-1405 कोउनकेचालको �शवि�.स.2 � 6 ारातेजी, गफलत, लापर�ाहीसेअपनेअपने �ाहनोंकोचलायेजानेकेकारणदु्ቈ(टना�ें्ቚ ाथ+गणकेपरिरजन�हा�ीर श�ा( की�ृ्ቓु हुई?

¶61

[2] आया्ቚ ाथ+गण्ቌ वितपूवित( केरूप�ें 6,10,000/- रूपयेयाअ्቗ कोईराविश्ቚ ा्቎ करनेकेअवि6कारीहै?

¶62

[3] आया�्ሹ दु्ቈ(टनाट्रोलाए�ंबसचालककेपास�ै6 ए�ं्ቚ भा�ी डी.एल. नहींथा।यविदहांतोइसका्ቄ ा्ቚ भा�है? [4] अनुतोष?”

¶63

After framing the issues, the learned Tribunal made the following observations:

¶64

(a) The said accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of both, the trolley as well as the bus and therefore, this contributory negligence of 50% each has been found, by both the vehicles, which resulted in the death of the deceased, Mahaveer Sharma.

¶65

(b) After analysing the evidence present on record, compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- is awarded to the appellants/claimants.

¶66

(c) There was no evidence placed on record to prove that the bus driver as well as the trolley driver were in possession of a valid driving license.

¶67

Thus, aggrieved of the award and judgment, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,09,000/-, passed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 20.03.2004, the appellants/claimants have preferred the present appeal.

¶68

Learned counsel of the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was of 20 years age at the time of his death and

[2024:RJ-JD:29382]

[CMA-1115/2004]

(6 of 16)

therefore, a higher multiplier ought to have been applied by the learned Tribunal. He further submits that alternatively, if the multiplier in accordance with the age of the mother, i.e. 45 years in the present case, is to be taken, then too, the learned Tribunal erred in taking a lower multiplier.

¶73

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Tribunal also erred in disregarding the compensation under different heads including transportation charges, funeral charges, love and affection. He also submits that the learned Tribunal did not take into account the future prospects of the income of the deceased. He also submits that 9% interest should be granted from the date of filing of the claim petition since the Hon'ble Apex Court in recent judgments, has been granting 9% interest per annum on the compensation awarded, from the date of filing the application till the date of the payment of the compensation to the appellants. He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjali and Ors. v. Lokendra Rathod and Ors. , and the relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced as under:

¶74

"11. Total Compensation to be Paid Rs.25,91,388/-. Thus the total compensation payable to the Appellants is Rs.25,91,388/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment of the compensation to the Appellants."

¶75

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the interest should be 6% per annum on the compensation in accordance with the “ Revised Guidelines for Settlement in MACT Cases ” issued by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authorities dated 15.04.2021. He also submitted that the interest

(7 of 16)

[2024:RJ-JD:29382]

[CMA-1115/2004]

shall not be payable on the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶80

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused material available on record and judgments cited at the Bar.

¶81

Taking into consideration the facts of the case where the claimant, who was aged 20 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal erred in taking the multiplier as 5, instead of 18 as held in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . This Court also finds that in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.:2017 (16) SCC 680 , wherein the future prospects of income have to be taken as 40% for a person selfemployed/employed at a fixed salary, below the age of 40 years. It is also seen that since the deceased is a bachelor, his income has to be deducted by 50% towards personal expenses in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra.) . Thus, his income is requantified and remodified as under:

¶82

2,000 x 40% = 800

¶83

2,000+800 = Rs. 2,800 - 1/2 of 2,800

¶84

= Rs. 1,400 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 3,02,400/-

¶85

This Court also finds that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of consortium at Rs.20,000/- each to claimant No.1 and 2/parents of the deceased and compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection at Rs.5,000/- only to the claimant no.3/brother of the deceased and, therefore, the same is also modified and re-quantified; the claimants are held

[2024:RJ-JD:29382]

[CMA-1115/2004]

(8 of 16)

entitled for compensation of Rs.96,000/- (48,000 x 2) towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Also, this Court observes that since the amount awarded under consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estates already carries an increase of 10% every 3 years, therefore, the said headings shall not carry the interest amount, in accordance with the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rasal Kanwar (supra.) .

¶90

This Court also finds that the towards funeral expenses, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- and towards loss of estate, the learned Tribunal has awarded no compensation, which in the opinion of this Court is not in consonance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra.) .Therefore, in view of various pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court, the same deserves to be modified. Accordingly, the compensation awarded under these heads is also modified and the claimants shall be entitled to receive Rs.18,000/towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate. 13. In view of above discussion, the misc. appeal preferred by the appellant Insurance Company is partly allowed. The judgment and award impugned dated 20.03.2004 passed by the learned Tribunal is modified and the claimants are thus held entitled to get

¶91

compensation of Rs.4,34,400/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.

¶92

Heads	Awarded by Tribunal	Awarded by the Court
Income of the deceased	Rs. 1,60,00/-	Rs. 3,02,400/-
(per annum)
Consortium	Rs. 20,000/-	Rs. 96,000/-
Loss of Love and	Rs. 5,000/-
Affection to Brothers
Funeral Expenses	Rs. 5,000/-	Rs.18,000/-
Loss of Estate	Notgiven	Rs.18,000/-

(9 of 16)

[2024:RJ-JD:29382]

[CMA-1115/2004]

Total Award	Rs. 1,90,000/- Rs. 4,34,400/-
Total Award	Rs. 4,34,400/-
Award byTribunal	Rs. 1,90,000/-
Enhanced Compensation	Rs.2,44,400

¶97

Therefore, the award passed by learned Tribunal, Bhilwara dated 20.03.2004 is partially modified and it is held that the appellants/claimants are entitled to get the enhanced award of Rs. 2,44,400/- jointly and severably which shall be payable along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till actual payment is made, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum for the subsequent period (i.e. after three months from today) till actual payment is made.

¶98

Any amount already paid by the respondents, shall be adjusted towards the amount finally awarded by this Court. 16. The misc. appeal is partly allowed. All pending applications, if any, shall stands disposed of. Record be sent back forthwith. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1661/2004

¶99

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’), seeking enhancement of the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (‘Tribunal’), wherein the learned Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 7,45,000/- jointly and severally in favor of the claimants and against the respondents. The interim amount of ₹50,000 previously received by the claimants was to be adjusted in the final award. The claimants were entitled to simple annual interest at a rate of 6% on the amount of ₹7,45,000 from the date of filing the claim i.e. 25.12.2000 until the date of receiving the interim award i.e. 08.04.2003. Additionally, they were entitled to the

(10 of 16)

[2024:RJ-JD:29382]

[CMA-1115/2004]

same interest rate on the amount of ₹6,95,000 from the date of receiving the interim award until full payment. The claimants were also entitled to ₹500 as case expenses. The appellants have also sought interest to be awarded at the rate of 18% on the award and judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, from the date of filing the petition.

¶104

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on behalf of the Claimants the claim was presented in the Tribunal on 26.12.2000, stating that on 6.10.2000, in a motor vehicle accident, the husband of the claimant Ratanmala and the father of the claimants - Jyoti and Ashish, Bhagchand Jain, died. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 50 years old. He was a contractor working for government and semi-government departments and autonomous institutions in Rajasthan. His monthly income was Rs. 20,000. The deceased sustained several severe and fatal injuries in the accident, leading to his immediate death. The accident involved a trailer (HR 55/2445) and a bus (RJ 09/P 1405). At the time of the accident, the trailer was owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No.3 and defendant No.2 was the driver. Similarly, the bus was owned by respondent No.4 and was insured with respondent No.6 and respondent No.5 was the driver. In the claim it was prayed for compensation of Rs. 85,51,000/- for various damages.

¶105

The incident details state that on 6.10.2000, around 5:15 AM, Bhagchand was standing by the roadside near an over-bridge on the Chittorgarh-Ajmer road, waiting for a bus to Beawar with his sister Nitu. Around 5:10 AM, a trailer (HR 55/2445) from Chittorgarh and a bus (RJ 09 P 1405) from the roadways bus

[2024:RJ-JD:29382]

[CMA-1115/2004]

(11 of 16)

stand approached at high speed, lost control, and hit Bhagchand near the waiting area. Bhagchand was crushed under the trailer, leading to his death. The claimants sought the requested compensation in their claim.

¶110

The respondent No.3 - Oriental Insurance Company in its reply to claim, accepted the ownership and insurance of the trailer but stated that the drivers did not have valid and effective driving licenses at the time of the accident. It was averred that the accident was caused by the negligence of the other vehicle's driver and not the trailer driver, and requested the claim be dismissed.

¶111

The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their reply acknowledged the ownership, insurance, and driver details of the trailer but blamed the bus driver for the accident, stating the trailer driver was not at fault, and requested for the dismissal of the claim.

¶112

The respondent No.6 - New India Insurance Company, accepted the insurance of the bus but blamed the trailer driver for the accident, claiming the bus driver was not at fault. It was stated the driver did not have a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and requested the claim be dismissed.

¶113

The respondents No. 4 and 5 did not present any response despite being given the opportunity.

¶114

On 27.01.2003, an interim award of Rs. 50,000 was passed jointly and separately in favor of the applicants and against the respondents.

¶115

The appellant/claimants in support to their evidence witnessed AD-01 - Ratanmala's statements were recorded. Documentary evidence included criminal case documents, income tax returns, and documents related to the deceased's income,

(12 of 16)

[2024:RJ-JD:29382]

[CMA-1115/2004]

presented as Exhibits 1 to 28. No evidence was presented by the respondents.

¶120

After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal framed issues, including:

¶121

“1. आयावि�. सं. 1 के्ቭ ावि�्቙ ए�ंवि�. सं. 3 केपासबीवि�त�ाहनकट्रेलर

¶122

एच. आर. 55/2445 तथावि�. सं. 4 के्ቭ ावि�्቙ �वि�. सं. 6 केपासबीवि�त �ाहनबसआर.जे.09/ पी 1405 कोउनकेचालकोंक�शःवि�. सं. 2 � 5 ्ቛारा तेजी, गफलत, लापर�ाहीसेअपने-अपने�ाहनोंकोचलानेजानेकेकारणदु्ቈ(टना �ें्ቚ ाथ+गणकेपरिरजनभागच्቎ जैनकी�ृ्ቓु हुई?

¶123

आया्ቚ ाथ+गण्ቌ वितपूवित( केरूप�ें 85,51,000/- रूपयेयाअ्቗ कोईराविश

¶124

ा्቎ करनेकेअवि6कारीहै?

¶125

आया�्ሹ दु्ቈ(टनादोलाए�ंबसचालककेपास�ै6 �्ቚ भा�ीडी. एल. नहीं था।यविदहांतोइसका्ቄ ा्ቚ भा�है? 4. अनुतोष?”

¶126

After framing the issues, the learned Tribunal made the following observations:

¶127

(a) The said accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of both, the trolley as well as the bus and therefore, this contributory negligence of 50% each has been found, by both the vehicles, which resulted in the death of the deceased, Bhagchand Jain.

¶128

(b) After analysing the evidence present on record, the monthly income of the deceased at the time of the accident is to be taken as Rs. 18,000/- and subsequently, compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,45,000/- is awarded to the appellants/claimants.

[2024:RJ-JD:29382]

[CMA-1115/2004]

(13 of 16)

(c) There was no evidence placed on record to prove that the bus driver as well as the trolley driver were in possession of a valid driving license.

¶133

Thus, aggrieved of the award and judgment, awarding a compensation of Rs. 7,45,000/-, passed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 20.03.2004, the appellants/claimants have preferred the present appeal.

¶134

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal erred in applying an interest of 6% only on the compensation granted to the tune of Rs. 7,45,000/- only instead of 18%. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not providing future prospects of the income of the deceased.

¶135

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 5, when the age of the deceased at the time of death was 52 years. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in providing a meagre amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards the loss of love and affection along with pain and sufferings to the appellant no.1/wife of the deceased. He further submits that both the appellant no. 2 and 3/ children of the deceased have been granted only Rs. 5,000/- each against the head of mental agony and loss of love and affection of a father. He also submits the learned Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards the funeral expenses.

¶136

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants also submits that in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra.) , consortium of Rs. 48,000/-

[2024:RJ-JD:29382]

[CMA-1115/2004]

(14 of 16)

each should be granted to the three dependants, appellant no. 1, and appellant no. 2 & 3.

¶141

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits that the rate of interest on the compensation awarded should be 6% per annum in the light of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rasal Kanwar v. Harish Chand [ S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1099/2019 decided on 20.03.2024 ].

¶142

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused material available on record and judgments cited at the Bar. 11. Taking into consideration the facts of the case where the claimant, who was aged 52 years at the time of accident and earning Rs. 18,000/- per month, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal erred in taking the multiplier as 5, instead of 11 as upheld in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . This Court also finds that in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.:2017 (16) SCC 680 , wherein the future prospects of income have to be taken as 10% for a person selfemployed/employed at a fixed salary, within the age group of 5060 years. It is also seen that the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra.) . Thus, his income is re-quantified and remodified as under:

¶143

18,000 x 10% = 1,800 18,000+1,800 = Rs. 19,800 - 1/3 of 19,800 = Rs. 13,200 x 12 x 11 = Rs. 17,42,400/-

[2024:RJ-JD:29382]

[CMA-1115/2004]

(15 of 16)

This Court also finds that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of consortium at Rs.10,000/- only to appellant No.1/wife of the deceased and compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection to the appellant no.2 and 3/brother at Rs.5,000/- each only and, therefore, the same is also modified and re-quantified; the claimants are held entitled for compensation of Rs.96,000/- (48,000 x 3) towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Also, this Court observes that since the amount awarded under consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estates already carries an increase of 10% every 3 years, therefore, the said headings shall not carry the interest amount, in accordance with the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rasal Kanwar (supra.) .

¶148

This Court also finds that the towards funeral expenses, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- and towards loss of estate, the learned Tribunal has awarded no compensation, which in the opinion of this Court is not in consonance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra.) .Therefore, in view of various pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court and the Guidelines issued by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, the same deserves to be modified. Accordingly, the compensation awarded under these heads is also modified and the claimants shall be entitled to receive Rs.18,000/towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate. 13. In view of above discussion, the misc. appeal preferred by the appellant Insurance Company is partly allowed. The judgment and award impugned dated 20.03.2004 passed by the learned Tribunal

(16 of 16)

[2024:RJ-JD:29382]

[CMA-1115/2004]

is modified and the claimants are thus held entitled to get

¶153

compensation of Rs. along with interest @ 6% p.a.

¶154

Heads	Awarded by Tribunal	Awarded by the Court
Income of the deceased (per annum)	Rs. 7,20,000/-	Rs. 17,42,400/-
Consortium to wife	Rs. 10,000/-	Rs. 1,44,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection to Children(2)	Rs. 5,000/- each, i.e. Rs. 10,000/- in total
Funeral Expenses	Rs. 5,000/-	Rs.18,000/-
Loss of Estate	Notgiven	Rs.18,000/-
Total Award	Rs. 7,45,000/-	Rs. 19,22,400/-
Total Award	Rs. 19,22,400	/-
Award byTribunal	Rs. 7,45,000/	-
Enhanced Compensation	Rs.11,77,400	/-

¶155

Therefore, the award passed by learned Tribunal, Bhilwara dated 20.03.2004 is partially modified and it is held that the appellants/claimants are entitled to get the enhanced award of Rs. 11,77,400/- jointly and severably which shall be payable along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till actual payment is made, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum for the subsequent period (i.e. after three months from today) till actual payment is made.

¶156

Any amount already paid by the respondents, shall be adjusted towards the amount finally awarded by this Court. 16. The misc. appeal is partly allowed. All pending applications, if any, shall stands disposed of.

¶157

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶158

97-98/devesh/-

Smt. Ratanbala and Ors. v. Ramchandra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ratanbala and Ors. v. Ramchandra 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

Asha Ram Vs Achala Ram and Anr.

Shivratan and Ors. Vs Madho Singh and Ors.

Ramu Ram Vs Ganpat Ram and Anr.

Ganpat Lal Vs Smt. Priya Devi and Anr.

Mahendra Kumar Vs Heera Chand

Harish Jasuja Vs State of Rajasthan