Partly allowed

Mohan Lal and Ors. v. Gyan Chand and Ors.

Rajasthan HC23 Feb 2024CMA/2142/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a special appeal to enhance compensation awarded to claimants in a motor accident case. The Court increased the multiplier from 16 to 18, awarded loss of estate, funeral expenses, and increased consortium damages per dependant.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.8,82,360/- including increased multiplier for loss of income, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium.

Mohan Lal and Ors. Vs Gyan Chand and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:9414]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2142/2007

Mohan Lal And Ors.

----Appellants

Versus

Gyan Chand And Ors.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Sandeep Saruparia
	Mr.	Nikhil Ajmera
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	U.C.S. Singhvi

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Judgment

¶11

23/02/2024

¶12

The present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellantsclaimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide Judgment and Award dated 16.06.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh in Motor Accident Claim Case No.499/2005.

¶13

The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @8% per annum in favour of the claimants.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants, at the very inception, submits that he does not press the finding of learned Tribunal qua assessment of the income. He submits that the income of Rs.2700/- as assessed by the learned Tribunal is in terms of the material available on record and hence, he does not dispute the same. However, he submits that while computing loss of income, future prospects @40% ought to have been taken into consideration in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex

[2024:RJ-JD:9414]

[CMA-2142/2007]

(2 of 4)

Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr; 2009 (6) SCC 121 . He further submits, that looking to the number of dependants i.e. five, the deduction qua personal expenses also ought to have been 1/4^th of the income and not 1/3^rd . Learned counsel further submits that the consortium to all the dependants also be awarded in terms of the judgment in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and Ors.; (2018) 18 SCC 130 and further, compensation qua funeral expenses and loss of estate too be awarded as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company is not in a position to refute the legal position as laid down in the above mentioned judgments. 4. In the opinion of this Court, besides the grounds as raised by learned counsel for the appellants, the multiplier of 16 as applied by the learned Tribunal also deserves interference in terms of ratio laid down in Sarla Verma (supra). As the deceased was admittedly 25 years of age, multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied.

¶20

Further, the amount under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ also deserves to be granted to each claimant and to be enhanced at the rate of 10% every three years from the date of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) i.e. 31.10.2017. Hence, the amount under the head ‘loss of consortium’ deserves to be enhanced to Rs.48,000/-.

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:9414]

[CMA-2142/2007]

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

¶25

Loss of consortium: Rs.48,000/- to each dependant;

¶26

Funeral expenses: Rs.15,000 /-.

¶27

Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated 16.06.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh in Motor Accident Claim Case No.499/2005 is modified to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to the following compensation:

¶28

1.	Income per month (after adding future prospects (40%) and deduction towards personal and living expenses (1/4th in the monthlyincome of Rs.2700/- )	Rs.2835/-
2.	Loss of Annual Income (as per the age of the deceased [25 years ], multiplier of 18).	2835 x 12 x 18 =Rs.6,12,360/-
3.	Under the head of ‘loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
4.	Under the head of ‘consortium’	Rs.48000/- each to appellant Nos.1,2,3,4,& 5 Total: Rs.2,40,000 /-
5.	Under the head of ‘Funeral expenses’	Rs.15,000/-
6.	Total amount of compensation	Rs.8,82,360/-
7.	Amount awarded byTribunal.	Rs.4,00,000/-
8.	Enhanced amount of compensation	Rs.8,82,360/- -Rs.4,00,000/- ------------------ Rs.4,82,360/-

¶29

The enhanced amount qua the loss of income and other heads shall carry an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. However, the amount awarded vide this order qua the head of consortium shall not carry any interest as the same already comprises of a 10% increase for

[2024:RJ-JD:9414]

[CMA-2142/2007]

(4 of 4)

every three years and hence, has been computed to be Rs.48,000/-.

¶34

The respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. Upon deposition, learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the claimants in terms of the award.

¶35

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶36

266-T.Singh/-

Mohan Lal and Ors. v. Gyan Chand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal and Ors. v. Gyan Chand 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

Smt. Manohar Kanwar and Anr. Vs Tarkeshwar Giri and Ors.

Lrs of Satyanarayan and Anr. Vs Sharwan Kumar and Ors.

Shailendra Arora Vs Laxmi Jingar

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kailash Devi

Hemendrapuri Vs Smt. Chitranjnapuri and Ors.

M/S Tata Projects Ltd. Vs Central Public Works Department