Partly allowed

Smt. Kanya Kanwar and Ors. v. Babu Giri and Ors.

Rajasthan HC9 Feb 2024CMA/483/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs. 2,84,400 to Rs. 5,75,500. It upheld the Tribunal's rejection of an uncorroborated salary certificate but applied 40% future prospects, 1/4 personal expense deduction, and correct multiplier, funeral, and consortium awards based on Pranay Sethi.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 5,75,500 with 7.5% interest.

Smt. Kanya Kanwar and Ors. Vs Babu Giri and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

(1 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:6995]

[CMA-483/2004]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 483/2004

¶6

Smt. Kanya Kawar W/o Badri Singh, aged 30 years,

¶7

Sh. Deepak Singh S/o Badri Singh, aged 05 years

¶8

Smt. Tamu Bai W/o Goverdhan Singh, aged 50 years

¶9

Sh. Surendra Singh S/o Badri Singh, aged 2.6 years

¶10

Appellant No.02 & 04 are minor through natural guardian Appellant No.01 and R/o Lambodi, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand.

¶11

----Appellant

¶12

Versus

¶13

Shri Babu Giri S/o Bhawar Giri Goswami, R/o Badiyar, Post Mavli, District Udaipur (Driver)

¶14

M/s Aaditya Minerals, 80 Shadi Complex, Street No.11, Hiran Magri, Udaipur (Owner)

¶15

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Near Shastri Circle, Udaipur

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Ajmera For Respondent(s) : None present

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

¶19

Judgment

¶20

09/02/2024

¶21

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal assails the award dated 03.01.2004 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand on the file of M.A.C.Case No. 409/2002 wherein and whereby the claim of the appellants for compensation was partly allowed granting a compensation of Rs.2,84,400/- with interest.

¶22

The contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the Tribunal has ignored Exhibit-3, the salary

[2024:RJ-JD:6995]

[CMA-483/2004]

(2 of 4)

certificate issued by the employer, which clearly demonstrate that the deceased was a salesman in the Jewelry shop and he was earning Rs. 9000/- per month. According to him, the Tribunal without any opposition from the Insurance Company has ignored such important material and treated the deceased an unskilled labour and awarded minimum wages, which is incorrect. It is also his contention that while giving deduction, the Tribunal has improperly applied 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses. When the dependents are more than 3, it should have been applied 1/4. It is also submitted that future prospects in the earning of the deceased was also not considered. It is also his contention that compensation towards other heads were not properly awarded.

¶27

None appeared for the Insurance Company.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

From perusal of the evidence on record, it reveals that the appellants have relied upon Exhibit-3, the salary certificate issued by the employer but the employer was not examined. Further, there is no other corroborating material to establish the genuineness of Exhibit- 3 and in the absence of corroborating materials like deposit of salary in the bank account etc. and other statutory contribution from the employer, it creates doubt about employment of the deceased with the jewelry shop. The Tribunal has rightly ignored the Exhibit-3 in the above background. While taking into consideration the occupation of the deceased as unskilled labour, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1800 per months on the basis of minimum wages. Such a findings do not suffer from any illegality, therefore,

[2024:RJ-JD:6995]

[CMA-483/2004]

(3 of 4)

this Court is not inclined to interfere in fixation of the monthly wages of the deceased.

¶34

The Tribunal was wrong in not considering the grant of future increase in the income. The Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 has awarded 40% increase in the existing income in a case where the deceased was below 40 years of age. In the present case, the deceased was 30 years of age and was self-employed. He was entitled for 40% increase towards future prospects. 7. The Tribunal deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses. The deceased survived by with wife, two children and mother. The dependents are 4 in numbers, therefore, appropriate deduction should be 1/4. 8. The Tribunal in the present case has applied multiplier of 18 which is incorrect. The deceased was 30 years of age. The appropriate multiplier should be 17. 9. The Tribunal has granted Rs.4000/- towards funeral expenses, which should have been Rs.15000/- as fixed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (cited supra). The Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards loss of estate. The loss of Estate should be 15,000/-. The Tribunal has consolidated the compensation and granted 20,000/- in all towards love and affection. The Tribunal should have considered loss of filial consortium as well as parental consortium and each claimant should have been granted Rs.40,000/- under this head. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal towards love and affection shall be adjusted towards loss of consortium.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:6995]

[CMA-483/2004]

Taking into account the above factors, the following amounts are arrived at :

¶39

1. Annual income of the deceased (1800 x 12)	21,600
2. Added: future prospects (40%)	8,640
3. Total annual income of the deceased (21,600+ 8,640)	30,240
4. Deducted : towards personal expenses (1/4)	7,560
5. Annual amount of dependency (30,240-7,560)	22,680
6. Multiplier to be applied	17
7. Total amount of dependency (22,680 X 17)	3,85,560
8. Added : Consortium to all claimants (40,000 x 4)	1,60,000
9. Added : Loss of estate	15,000
10. Added : Funeral expenses	15,000

¶40

Total entitlement of the appellants Rs.5,75,560 Rounded off Rs.5,75,500

¶41

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,84,400/- to Rs.5,75,500/-. The appellants are entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the petition till the date of deposition. The amount shall be deposited within a period of two months from the date of this judgment.

¶42

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶43

Nikita/NK 1

Smt. Kanya Kanwar and Ors. v. Babu Giri and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kanya Kanwar and Ors. v. Babu Giri 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Vs Chhaganlal and Ors.

Basanti and Ors. Vs Bhabuta Ram and Ors.

Smt. Mirki and Ors. Vs Dasrath Singh and Ors.

Smt. Shanta Kanwar and Ors. Vs Babu Giri and Ors.

Kanya and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Jitendra Singh Rathore Vs the Central Co-Op Bank and Anr.