Allowed

Mirki v. Sh. Dasrath Singh

Rajasthan HC30 Aug 2024CRW/3/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition corrected a clerical error in a civil miscellaneous appeal by substituting 'sisters' with 'sons' as dependents. The High Court recalculated compensation, increased dependency from 1/3 to 1/4, and added consortium for all claimants, enhancing total compensation from Rs.2.71 lakh to Rs.6.78 lakh.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,71,800 to Rs.6,78,240 with 7.5% per annum interest awarded.

Mirki Vs Sh. Dasrath Singh — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:35971]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 3/2024

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1070/2004

¶6

Mirki W/o Late Bhagwati Meena, Aged About 24 Years, R/ o Pipli B, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur.

¶7

Sh. Babulal S/o Bhagwatilal Meena, Aged About 5 Years, Minor Through Guardian Appellant No. 1, R/o Pipli B, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur.

¶8

Sh. Shankerlal S/o Bhagwatilal Meena, Aged About 3 Years, Minor Through Guardian Appellant No. 1, R/o Pipli B, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur.

¶9

Sh. Prakesh S/o Bhagwatilal Meena, Aged About 2 Years, Minor Through Guardian Appellant No. 1, R/o Pipli B, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur.

¶10

Sh. Shanti S/o Bhagwatilal Meena, Aged About 3 Years, Aged 3 Months, Minor Through Guardian Appellant No. 1, R/o Pipli B, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur.

¶11

Smt. Ganga W/o Dhulji Meena, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Pipli B, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur.

¶12

----Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

1. Sh. Dasrath Singh S/o Raghunath Singh Rajpoot, R/o Gram Banewdi, P.S. Shree Nagar, District Ajmer.

¶15

1. Managing Director Rajasthan Co-Operative Dairy Federation Limited, Jaipur, Branch Goverdhan Vilas, Udaipur.

¶16

The New India Insurance Company Limited, 3, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Nikhil Ajmera
For Respondent(s)	: Nonepresent

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

30/08/2024

[2024:RJ-JD:35971]

[CRW-3/2024]

(2 of 3)

The present petition has been filed for review/correction in the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1070/2004, particularly paragraphs 2 & 5 of the said order wherein instead of four sons, four sisters have been referred.

¶26

Notices have been served, however, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 3. Heard.

¶27

With reference to paragraphs 2 & 5 of the order under review, it is stated that appellants no.3 to 5 were taken as married sisters of the deceased and on such misconception, the dependency was taken for only two dependents, whereas the appellants No.3 to 5 are sons of the deceased. Therefore, it is prayed that necessary correction may be incorporated in the order dated 14.12.2023.

¶28

In view of the above factual background made by the appellants, it is ordered that the relevant paragraphs in which 1/3 deduction is prescribed, shall be supplanted with 1/4. Further, the words “four sons” instead of “four sisters” shall be read in paragraphs no.2 & 5 of the order dated 14.12.2023. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the consortium was granted only for two persons instead of all the claimants. The claimants are mother, wife and minor sons of the deceased and each one of them is entitled for Rs.40,000/-. In this regard there is an apparent error with regard to confining the consortium for only two persons, the same is ordered to be corrected.

¶29

As regards paragraph no.9 consequent to above corrections, re-computation of the amount of compensation is required. The

¶30

(3 of 3) [CRW-3/2024]

¶31

[2024:RJ-JD:35971]

¶32

following re-computation shall be read in place of earlier computation made in paragraph no.9 of the order dated 14.12.2023:

¶33

Re-computation of amount

¶34

1.	Annual income of the deceased(1800 x 12)	21,600/-
2.	Added: futureprospects(40%)	8,640/-
3.	Total annual income of the deceased (21,600+8640)	30,240/-
4.	Deducted : towardspersonal expenses(1/4)	7,560/-
5.	Annual amount of dependency (30,240- 7,560)	22,680/-
6.	Multiplier to be applied	18
7.	Total amount of dependency (22,680x18)	4,08,240/-
8.	Added: Consortium to all claimants (40,000x6)	2,40,000/-
9.	Added : Loss of estate	15,000/-
10.	Added : Funeral expenses	15,000/-
	Total entitlement of the appellants	6,78,240/-

¶35

Accordingly, the operative para of the order dt. 14.12.2023 shall be read as under:-

¶36

“10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,71,800/- to Rs.6,78,240/-. The enhanced compensation shall be paid with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposition. The amount shall be deposited within two months from the date of this judgment.”

¶37

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶38

5-BhumikaP/-

Mirki v. Sh. Dasrath Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mirki v. Sh. Dasrath Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar Choudhary Vs State and Ors.

Leelavati Vs State of Rajasthan

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

Jamal Khan Vs State and Ors.

Onkar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Jagdish Vs State of Raj. and Ors.