Partly allowed

Jagdish S/O Mana v. Shri Rajneesh S/O Shri Banshilal Kumawat

Rajasthan HC19 Feb 2024CMA/201/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, modifying the Tribunal's award. It directed the enhancement of compensation for wrongful death by correcting the income calculation period and increasing amounts for filial consortium and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's judgment is modified; the Insurance Company is directed to deposit an enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,45,064 with interest.

Jagdish S/O Mana Vs Shri Rajneesh S/O Shri Banshilal… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:8263]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 201/2021

¶4

Jagdish S/o Mana, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Gajjanadi, Tehsil Bhinay P.s. Bhinay District Ajmer (Raj.)

¶5

Smt Manju W/o Jagdish, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Gajjanadi, Tehsil Bhinay P.s. Bhinay District Ajmer (Raj.)

¶6

Gudiya D/o Jagdish, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Gajjanadi, Tehsil Bhinay P.s. Bhinay District Ajmer (Raj.)

¶7

Bablu S/o Jagdish, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Gajjanadi, Tehsil Bhinay P.s. Bhinay District Ajmer (Raj.)

¶8

Smt Prem Devi W/o Mana, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Gajjanadi, Tehsil Bhinay P.s. Bhinay District Ajmer (Raj.)

¶9

Mana S/o Hajari, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Gajjanadi, Tehsil Bhinay P.s. Bhinay District Ajmer (Raj.)

¶10

----Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Shri Rajneesh S/o Shri Banshilal Kumawat, R/o Village Badanvada Tehsil Bhinay District Ajmer (Driver Of Vehicle Atul Tempo No. Rj01--Gb-2262)

¶13

Nirmal S/o Shree Jagdish, R/o Near Neelkant Railway Station Badanvada Tehsil Bhinay District Ajmer (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Atul Tempo No. Rj01-Gb2262)

¶14

Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 607-611 6Th Floor Trimurty V-Jai City Point, D-52 Ahinsa Circle Ashok Marg C-Scheme Jaipur Insurance Company Vehicle Atul Tempo No. Rj01-Gb-2262)

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Jodha, Adv.

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶18

Judgment

¶19

Date Of Judgment 19/02/2024

[2024:RJ-JP:8263]

[CMA-201/2021]

(2 of 5)

The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimants-appellants (for short ‘the claimants’) dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 04.03.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shahpura, Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kekri District Ajmer (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.89/2017, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,83,888/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition as compensation in favour of the claimants.

¶24

The Tribunal 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 claim petition of the claimants and awarded the amount as indicated above

¶25

Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,382/per month. The Tribunal has also wrongly considered the income of the deceased for 26 days only, whereas it should be for 30 days. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the deceased was working as a mechanic and income of the deceased was Rs.15,000/- per month and the said contention was not controverted by the respondents. So, income of the deceased should have been considered as Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has awarded only 40% amount towards future prospects. Looking to the brilliant future of the deceased, it should be double of the existing income. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded a very meager amount towards filial consortium and funeral expenses as Rs.70,000/-.

[2024:RJ-JP:8263]

[CMA-201/2021]

(3 of 5)

Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the filial consortium should be awarded Rs.40,000/- to each claimant. So, the judgment and award dated 04.03.2020 passed the Tribunal be modified accordingly.

¶30

Learned counsel for the insurance company has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,382/-per month because the claimants failed to adduce cogent evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the insurance company further submits that the deceased had no permanent job. So the Tribunal has rightly awarded 40% amount towards future prospects. Learned counsel for the insurance company also submits that the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.70,000/- towards filial consortium and funeral expenses. So the appeal filed by the claimants be dismissed.

¶31

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the insurance company.

¶32

It is an admitted position that claimants failed to adduce cogent evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. So, the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.207/- per day but the Tribunal considered the same for 26 days only, whereas it should be for 30 days. Deceased had no permanent job. So, taking into consideration the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly awarded 40% amount towards future prospects, but the Tribunal has awarded a very meager amount towards filial consortium and funeral

[2024:RJ-JP:8263]

[CMA-201/2021]

(4 of 5)

expenses as Rs.70,000/-. The claimant Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and love and affection. Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate is awarded in favour of the claimants. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under:-.

¶37

Monthly income	207X30= Rs.6210/-
Annual Income	6210X12= Rs.74,520/-
According to the age of the deceased i.e. 19 years, Multiplier 18 to be applied	74,520 X 18= Rs.13,41,360/-
1/2 is to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased	13,41,360- 6,70,680=6,70,680/-
Add 40% towards future prospects	6,70,680+2,68,272= Rs.9,38,952/-
Loss of consortium and Love and Affection to the claimant Nos.(40,000X 4)	Rs.1,60,000/-
Loss of Estate(+)	Rs.15,000/-
Funeral expenses (+)	Rs.15,000/-
Total	Rs.11,28,952/-
Less amount awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.8,83,888/-
Enhanced Amount of compensation	11,28,952-8,83,888= Rs.2,45,064/-

¶38

In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to get a further sum of Rs.2,45,064/- as compensation. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs. Rs.2,45,064/- (11,28,952-8,83,888) with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On deposition of the said amount, the claimants shall be entitled to withdrawn the same. The enhanced amount shall

[CMA-201/2021]

[2024:RJ-JP:8263]

(5 of 5)

carry @ 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made.

¶43

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

¶44

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

¶45

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶46

Gaurav/

Jagdish S/O Mana v. Shri Rajneesh S/O Shri Banshilal Kumawat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish S/O Mana v. Shri Rajneesh S/O Shri Banshilal Kumawat

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

Balmukund Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Mohammad Tohid

Punama Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sabara @ Sayra W/O Rafiq Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohitashwa Kumar Meena S/O Harish Chand Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Sangeeta Shrivastava and Ors. Vs Bablu Singh and Ors.