Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sajna And Ors vs Sukhdev Singh And Ors on 25 February, 2019
Author: Prakash Gupta
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4619/2008
1. Sajna wife of late Shri Chanda Lal Gujar, aged about 24 years,
resident of Kasir, Tehsil Devali, Tonk.
2. Kumari Vimla Daughter of late Shri Chanda Lal, aged about 21
years.
3. Kumari Seem daughter of late Shri Chanda Lal, aged about 20
years.
4. Dharmraj son of late Shri Chanda Lal, aged about 14 years.
5. Raju son of late Shri Chanda Lal, aged about 12 years.
6. Mst. Manisha daughter of late Shri Chanda Lal, aged about 6
years, 4 to 6 are minors through natural guardian mother Sajna
wife of late Shri Chanda Lal.
All by caste Gujar, resident of Gram Kasir, Tehsil Devali, Tonk.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Sukhdev Singh son of Shrikal Singh, resident of 37, Railway
Road, Karnal (Haryana).
2. Sajjan Singh s/o Jasal Singh b/s Rajput R/o D-620, T.P.T.
Nagar, Delhi.
3. National Insurance Company Limited, J & K Bank Building First
Tal, Nai Sabji madi, Delhi
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Judgment / Order
25/02/2019
This appeal for enhancement of compensation is
directed against the judgment and award dated 23.01.2004
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) No.2,
Tonk (for short 'the tribunal'), whereby, the tribunal awarded a
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 02:35:32 AM)
(2 of 4) [CMA-4619/2008]
sum of Rs.2,31,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
The appeal has not been filed within the prescribed
time of limitation. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act has been filed for condonation of delay.
Heard.
Considered.
For the reasons stated in the application under Section
5 of the Limitation Act, the application is allowed and delay of 319
days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
the tribunal committed an error in awarding lesser compensation.
Despite producing oral evidence in support of income of the
deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, the same has been wrongly
assessed as Rs.1,500/- per month. The tribunal also erred in
granting meager amount towards conventional heads. The tribunal
further erred in deducting 1/3th instead of 1/4th income of the
deceased towards his personal expenses. Lastly, it is submitted
that the tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future
prospects. Therefore, the amount awarded by the tribunal
deserves to be enhanced adequately.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
No.3 has opposed the appeal and submitted that the tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month without any basis. At the relevant time, minimum wages fixed by the State Government were Rs.832/- per month only. As the age of the deceased was 32 years, at the time of accident, multiplier of 16 should have been applied instead of 17. (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 02:35:32 AM)
(3 of 4) [CMA-4619/2008] I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The claim-petition was filed by the appellants seeking compensation on account of death of Chandalal in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 08.10.1997. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of accident. But to prove the same, no cogent and documentary evidence was produced by the claimants. The tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month without any basis. On 01.01.1995, rate of minimum wages fixed by the State Government was Rs.832/- per month. The same was revised in the year 1998. In the case at hand, accident had occurred on 08.10.1997, In these fact and circumstances, income of the deceased is to be taken as Rs.1,000/- per month i.e. Rs.12,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased was 32 years at the time of accident, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, an addition of 40% is to be added towards future prospect of the deceased, which comes to Rs.4,800/-. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.16,800/-(12000+4800). Keeping in view the number of the dependents of the deceased i.e. six, one fourth (1/4) of the said income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 16 would be applied to work out the dependency of the claimants. In this way, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,01,600/- (16800x3/4x16). The (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 02:35:32 AM) (4 of 4) [CMA-4619/2008] claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the total amount of compensation receivable by the claimants comes to Rs.2,71,600/- (2,01,600+70,000).
Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Impugned award dated 23.01.2004 is modified to the extent that the compensation amount receivable by the claimants is Rs.2,71,600/- instead of Rs.2,31,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall be the same. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of payment with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J Mohit8 (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 02:35:32 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)