Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
R S R T C vs Mahesh Chand Gupta And Others on 7 May, 2012
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1741/2012 (Arising out of MAC Case No.151/2008) With Stay Application No.1417/2012 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sonya and Another 2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1742/2012 (Arising out of MAC Case No.150/2008) With Stay Application No.1418/2012 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Devkaran and Another 3. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1744/2012 (Arising out of MAC Case No.147/2008) With Stay Application No.1419/2012 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ramesh Singh and Another 4. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1745/2012 (Arising out of MAC Case No.630/2007) With Stay Application No.1421/2012 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta and Another 5. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1746/2012 (Arising out of MAC Case No.514/2007) With Stay Application No.1422/2012 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Chayna and Another 6. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1747/2012 (Arising out of MAC Case No.515/2007) With Stay Application No.1423/2012 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rashid and Another 7. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1748/2012 (Arising out of MAC Case No.146/2008) With Stay Application No.1424/2012 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mishrilal and Another 8. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1749/2012 (Arising out of MAC Case No.248/2007) With Stay Application No.1425/2012 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Jamaluddin Khan and Another 9. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1750/2012 (Arising out of MAC Case No.169/2007) With Stay Application No.1426/2012 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Prem Devi and Others 10. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1751/2012 (Arising out of MAC Case No.149/2008) With Stay Application No.1427/2012 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Prathviraj and Another 11. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1752/2012 (Arising out of MAC Case No.174/2007) With Stay Application No.1428/2012 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Nathuram @ Natthuram and Others 12. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1753/2012 (Arising out of MAC Case No.686/2007) With Stay Application No.1429/2012 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vijay Singh and Others 13. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1754/2012 (Arising out of MAC Case No.188/2007) With Stay Application No.1430/2012 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Prem and Others Date of Order ::: 07.05.2012 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Virendra Agrawal with Shri Prateek Sharma, counsel for appellant RSRTC #### By the Court:-
All these 13 appeals have been preferred by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against common award dated 13.03.2012 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa. Learned Tribunal, by aforesaid award, granted compensation to claimants.
Four of these 13 appeals arise out of claim cases filed by claimants claiming compensation for accidental death, whereas nine have been filed by claimants, who sustained injuries. Claimants in two claim cases are such who suffered amputation of right hand, claimant in one claim case suffered amputation of left hand and claimant in one claim case suffered amputation of right leg. Claimants in other claim cases have sustained varied nature of injuries.
In Appeal No.1741/2012 challenge is made to award in MAC Case No.151/2008. Contention of learned counsel for appellants is that injured in this case only suffered amputation of right hand leading to 65% permanent disability but having granted compensation adopting multiplier method and applying judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121, learned Tribunal ought not to have additionally awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for pain and suffering because the structured formula was adopted by learned Tribunal for award of compensation. Learned Tribunal in this case awarded a sum of Rs.3,97,800/- for loss of income on account of 65% permanent disability accepting monthly income of Rs.3000/- of claimant. Learned counsel sought to dispute the income also by arguing that claimant asserted that he was a potter and used to make mud-toys and artistic pots etc., but that, by itself, does not prove the monthly income to be Rs.3000/-, and this cannot be accepted in absence of any documentary evidence.
I am not prepared to accept any of these contentions; firstly, because there could not be any documentary proof of the fact that claimant was a potter and used to prepare mud toys and artistic pots; secondly, award of compensation of Rs.3,97,800/- cannot be held to be a reason not to award of Rs.1,50,000/- for pain and suffering. Learned Tribunal, on accepting age of claimant to be 30 years, has rightly applied multiplier of 17 in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra. If claimant has suffered amputation of right hand, as per settled proposition of law, award of additional compensation under the head of pain and suffering would be fully justified. Learned Tribunal in fact in additionally awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- has relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in Rudra Versus Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another 2011 RAR SC 119 and R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Private Limited (1995) ACC 281 (SC).
In Appeal No.1742/2012 challenge is made to award in MAC Case No.150/2008, whereby claimant has been awarded compensation of Rs.3,67,200/- on structured formula for amputation of right hand leading to 60% permanent disability on accepted monthly income of claimant at Rs.3,000/-. On the admitted age of injured to be 28 years, learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 17. Learned Tribunal also additionally awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for pain and suffering. For reasons giving while upholding award in MAC Case No. 151/2008, I am not prepared to accept any of these contentions and learned Tribunal while awarding compensation has relied on judgments of the Supreme Court, referred to supra.
In Appeal No.1744/2012 appellant is seeking to challenge award passed in MAC Case No.147/2008. Learned counsel has assailed the award of compensation of Rs.5,74,200/-. Learned Tribunal additionally awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for pain and suffering. The claimant was 22 years of age and suffered 65% permanent disability on account of amputation of his left hand. Keeping in view his age, learned Tribunal adopted multiplier of 18. It assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs.3000/-. The claimant has produced on record documentary evidence to prove his permanent disability. Learned Tribunal while awarding compensation has relied on aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court. For reasons given while upholding award in MAC Case No. 151/2008, I am not prepared to accept any of these contentions.
In Appeal No.1748/2012 arising out of MAC Case No.146/2008, there was amputation of right leg of injured leading to 80% permanent disability. The Tribunal in this case has awarded total compensation of Rs.5,77,400/-. Considering that right leg of injured Mishrilal had to be amputated from above thigh, which means almost complete left leg was amputated. In this case, age of the injured was accepted between 45 and 50 years and keeping the age in view learned Tribunal adopted multiplier of 13. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that his age was 35 years, therefore, he could not be accepted between 45 and 50 years of age. But the Tribunal found variation between pleading and documentary evidence. In X-ray report (Exhibit-285) and Injury-report (Exhibit-286) age of claimant is indicated to be 50 years and in permanent disability certificate (Exhibit-287) his age is shown to be 51 years. The Tribunal has also viewed the photograph enclosed with the claim petition and keeping those documents in view, learned Tribunal determined the age of claimant to be between 45 and 50 years and rightly applied the multiplier of 13. Learned Tribunal determined the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.3000/-. In this case the claimant suffered 80% permanent disability. Learned Tribunal also additionally awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for pain and suffering. Considered it to be a case of amputation of right leg and that disability was higher than the other claimants, whose hands were amputated, the Tribunal has marginally increased the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- on the head of pain and suffering, therefore the approach of the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous. For reasons giving while upholding award in MAC Case No. 151/2008, I am not prepared to accept any of these contentions. Learned Tribunal while awarding compensation has relied on judgments of the Supreme Court.
In Appeal No.1750/2012, arises out of MAC Case No.169/2007, which was filed by claimants for award of compensation on account of accidental death, learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,59,600/-. Age of deceased was accepted to be 30 years at the relevant point of time, and on that basis learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 while calculating compensation for loss of dependency on structured formula. Learned Tribunal determined the monthly income of deceased at Rs.3000/- and looking to number of dependents, deducted 1/5th for own expenses of deceased. Learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,59,600/-, which includes compensation for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Contention of learned counsel for appellant is that deceased was 30 years of age and therefore as per ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, the multiplier of 17 should have been applied. Learned Tribunal has awarded only sum of Rs.5000/- each to claimants for loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses. The Tribunal in awarding compensation has thus been very reasonable and compensation cannot be said to be unjust.
In Appeal No.1751/2012 arising out of MAC Case No.149/2008, learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,10,400/-. In this case claimant suffered amputation of his right hand and thereby he suffered 55% permanent disability. He was motorcycle mechanic. On the basis of the age mentioned in the injury report (Exhibit-320) and X-ray report (Exhibit-319), learned Tribunal assessed his age to be 22 years and, therefore, higher multiplier of 18 was applied in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma. Learned Tribunal determined the monthly income of deceased at Rs.3000/-. Learned Tribunal also additionally awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for pain and suffering. Learned Tribunal in support of its findings has relied on aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court. For reasons giving while upholding award in MAC Case No. 151/2008, I am not prepared to accept any of the contentions.
In Appeal No.1752/2012, arising out of MAC Case No.174/2007, death of unmarried person aged 30 years took place and award of compensation of Rs.2,48,000/- cannot be said to be excessive or otherwise unreasonable.
In Appeal No.1753/2012 arising out of MAC Case No.686/2007, claimants have been awarded compensation of RS.3,66,000/- for death of Bhanwar. Contention of learned counsel for appellant in this case has been that since widow has not appeared in witness box, therefore, she cannot be held dependent of deceased and could not be awarded compensation but I am not inclined to accept the contention because the son of deceased, who is one of the claimants, appeared in witness box and it is not necessary that all claimants should appear in witness box to prove the dependency.
In Appeal No.1754/2012 arising out of MAC Case No.188/2007 for death of Panchu Ram, who at relevant point of time was 40 years of age, learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. Contention of learned counsel for appellant is that income of deceased was not proved, cannot be accepted. Deceased was working as mechanic and also engaging in agriculture work. Claimants have failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his income. In absence of any proof, learned Tribunal, on the basis of relevant factors and in view of judicial pronouncements in State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others AIR 2003 SC 3696 and Lalaram Vs. Ramkaran and Others ACTC 2008 (2) 1150, learned Tribunal determined monthly income of deceased at Rs.3000/-. In view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, 1/4th was deducted for his own expenses and looking to his age applied multiplier of 15. The award of Rs.4,50,000/- includes the award of Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.5000/- each for loss of love and affection to four claimants, Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. The award cannot be said to be excessive or otherwise unreasonable.
In Appeal No.1749/2012 arising out of MAC Case No.248/2007, a sum of Rs.1,34,000/- has been awarded to injured, who sustained permanent disability to the extent of 22.8%. The Tribunal has awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.24,000/- for actual medical expenses. Award cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable.
Learned counsel has also assailed the award impugned in Appeals No.1746/2012 and 1747/20012 arising out of MAC Cases No.514/2007 and 515/2007, arguing that in both of them the claimants were paid compensation of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.4,000/-, respectively, pursuant to compromise arrived at between the parties, and yet the Tribunal respectively awarded compensation of Rs.35,000/- to claimant for three injures sustained by him and Rs.24,000/- to claimant for two injuries sustained by claimant, whereas no permanent disability was proved. Looking to the quantum of compensation that has been awarded by learned Tribunal in both these cases, interference in the award is not considered necessary and appropriate.
For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in any of the appeals and therefore the same are dismissed.
Consequent upon dismissal of appeals, stay applications, filed therewith, do not survive and same are also dismissed.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//23-35 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Giriraj Prasad Jaiman PS-cum-JW