Partly allowed

Gautam and Anr. v. Dinesh Kumar and Ors.

Rajasthan HC15 Mar 2024CMA/489/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court modified the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a motor accident death case. The Court enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 2,49,000 to Rs. 7,30,800 by revising the monthly income assessment, applying a multiplier of 18, and increasing the consortium award based on Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 7,30,800 including loss of consortium at Rs. 48,000 per dependant; interest directions issued.

Gautam and Anr. Vs Dinesh Kumar and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:20896]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 489/2013

Gautam And Anr.

----Appellants

Versus

Dinesh Kumar And Ors.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.Sandeep Saruparia a/w
	Mr.VijayRajpurohit & Mr.Nikhil Ajmera
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.TRS Sodha
	Mr.Dinesh Kumar Singh.

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Order

¶12

15/03/2024

¶13

1 . The present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellantsclaimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide Judgment and Award dated 26.10.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in MAC Case no.79/2011. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated 26.10.2012 awarded a sum of Rs.2,49,000/- in favour of the claimants alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 16.03.2011.

¶14

2 . Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was preferred by the claimants with the submission that on 06.06.2010, Garima Dhariwal, accompanied by Vinod Kothari, was en route from Pali to Beawar in a car bearing registration No.RJ-36-CA-0111. Garima occupied the rear seat while Vinod sat beside the driver in the front. At approximately 4:30 PM, upon reaching the intersection

(2 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JD:20896]

[CMA-489/2013]

next to Jadan village, a tanker with registration No. HR-38-K3281, owned by respondent No. 2, approached from the direction of Sojat. The said vehicle being driven rashly and negligently, caused a collision resulting in the fatalities of Vinod and Garima due to sustained injuries. FIR No.49/2010 pertaining to this incident was lodged at Police Station Shivpura, Pali.

¶19

The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured with respondent No.3 – Insurance Company.

¶20

3. The appellants-claimants are parents of deceased Garima Dhariwal. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,17,18,200/-. However, the learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,49,000/- in favour of the claimants-

¶21

appellants, the break-up of which is as under:

¶22

1.	Income per month (after deduction	Rs. 1500/-
	towards personal expenses (50%) in the monthly income of Rs. 3000/-)
2.	Loss of Annual Income (as per the	1500 x 12 x 13
	age of the deceased, multiplier of 13).	=Rs. 2,34,000/-
3.	Under the head of‘consortium’	Rs. 10000/-
4.	Under the head of‘Funeral expenses’	Rs. 5000/-
5.	Total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.2,49,000/-

¶23

Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum

¶24

from the date of filing of the claim petition.

[2024:RJ-JD:20896]

[CMA-489/2013]

(3 of 7)

Averring the compensation to be meagre, the claimants appellants have preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants raised the following grounds : Firstly , the deceased was earning through various means such as tutoring, computer related jobs, etc. She exhibited exceptional academic prowess having successfully passed the Company Secretary Exam. The learned Tribunal erroneously overlooked the evidence qua the same and rendered a nominal compensation award in favour of the appellants-claimants assessing the income of the deceased to be only Rs.3,000/- per month.

¶29

In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Meena Pawaia & Ors. vs. Asraf Ali & Ors.; (2021) 17 SCC 148 wherein the deceased was a 21 years old 3^rd year B.E. student. Therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court found the High Court’s assessment to be inadequate considering the educational qualification and potential future earnings of the deceased. The Court held that even for non-earning individuals, future prospects ought to be considered while computing the loss of income/dependancy.

¶30

Secondly , the learned Tribunal erred in omitting to take into consideration the future prospects of the deceased while computing the loss of income which is in total contravention to principles/guidelines as laid down in the case of National

¶31

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.;

¶32

(2017) 16 SCC 680 .

[2024:RJ-JD:20896]

[CMA-489/2013]

(4 of 7)

Thirdly , the learned Tribunal committed a significant error in its adjudication by providing insufficient compensation qua the conventional heads.

¶37

Fourthly , learned Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 13 only whereas, keeping into consideration the age of the deceased, i.e., 20 years, a multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied in terms of the guidelines as set out in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors.; (2009) 6 SCC 121 .

¶38

Further, the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 50% of income qua personal expenses whereas keeping into consideration the age and number of claimants, only 1/3^rd ought to have been deducted.

¶39

Lastly , awarding interest @ 6% per annum is also erroneous as the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have consistently awarded interest @12% and in certain cases even @18%.

¶40

9 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶41

Coming on the first ground regarding the income of the deceased, admittedly, no documentary evidence to prove the same qua any means, as alleged, has been placed on record. However, it is not disputed that the deceased had successfully cleared the Company Secretary exam at the young age of 20 years which shows that she was an extraordinary student and had she survived, she would definitely had a bright career and a successful future.

[2024:RJ-JD:20896]

[CMA-489/2013]

(5 of 7)

As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manusha

¶46

Sreekumar & Ors. vs. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.;

¶47

AIR 2022 SC 5161 , in absence of proof of income, the minimum wages notification cannot be the only yardstick to determine the income of the deceased. Minimum wages alongwith some amount of guesswork based on the realities and the facts of each particular case should be the approach while determining the compensation. Further, keeping into consideration the ratio laid down in Meena Pawaia (supra), this Court determines the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,000/- per month.

¶48

11 . Regarding the ground qua the amount to be awarded under the head of consortium, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) 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.

¶49

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/-.

(6 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JD:20896]

[CMA-489/2013]

On the above analysis, the amount under the conventional

¶54

heads, after enhancement, is modified as under:

¶55

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

¶56

Based on the arguments regarding compensation concerning the deceased's future potential, the multiplier linked to the deceased's age and the deduction from the deceased's income for personal expenses, this Court draws upon the precedent set in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and decides that compensation for the deceased's future prospects will be at the rate of 40%, the multiplier corresponding to the deceased's age will be 18, and there will be a deduction of half from the deceased's income for personal expenses, she being unmarried.

¶57

13. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated 26.10.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in MAC Case No.79/2011 is modified to the extent that the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to the following compensation :

¶58

1.	Income per month (after adding	Rs.2,800/-
	future prospects (40%) and
	deduction towards personal and
	living expenses (1/2) in the
	monthly income of Rs. 4000/-)
2.	Loss of Annual Income (as per the	2,800 x 12 x 18
	age of 20 years of the deceased, multiplier of 18).	= Rs.6,04,800/-
3.	Under the head of‘loss of estate’	Rs.15,000/-
4.	Under the head of ‘consortium’	Rs.48,000/- each to appellant Nos. 1 and 2

(7 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JD:20896]

[CMA-489/2013]

		Total: Rs.96,000/-
5.	Under the head of ‘Funeral expenses’	Rs.15,000/-
6.	Total amount of compensation	Rs.7,30,800/-
7.	Amount awarded by Tribunal.	Rs.2,49,000/-
8.	Enhanced amount of	Rs.7,30,800/-
	compensation	- Rs.2,49,000/- ------------------
		Rs. 4,81,800/-

¶63

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/-.

¶64

15. The enhanced amount excluding amount of consortium shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. The respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount (if not deposited yet) and 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.

¶65

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶66

129-T.Singh/-

Gautam and Anr. v. Dinesh Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam and Anr. v. Dinesh Kumar 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

Vachan Singh Charan Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Dev Kishan Vs Smt. Rekha Devi and Ors.

Dev Kishan Vs Smt. Kamla Devi and Ors.

Pankaj Vs Bhikham Chand

Rodi Bai and Ors. Vs Shanti Lal and Ors.

Khamana Ram @ Khumana Ram Vs Dhanraj and Ors.