Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Sumitra Devi Savitri Devi vs Ranjeet Singh Ranjeet Ram And Ors. ... on 16 October, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:42222]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1399/2016
Smt. Sumitra Devi @ Savitri Devi W/o Lt. Shri Omprakash, Aged
about 55 years, R/o 15 S.G.R., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ranjeet Singh @ Ranjeet Ram S/o Shri Moti Ram, R/o
Khothawali, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
(Jeep Owner)
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Sri Ganganagar
Road, Hanuman Junction through its Branch Manager.
(Jeep Insurer)
3. Harvindra Singh S/o Shri Satnam Singh, R/o Bhikhivind,
District Tarantaran (Punjab).
(Truck Owner)
4. Parvindra Singh S/o Shri Satnam Singh, R/o Bhikhivind,
District Tarantaran (Punjab)
(Truck Driver)
5. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Moga (Punjab),
through its Branch Manager.
(Truck Insurer)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1072/2016
Smt. Sumitra Devi @ Savitri Devi W/o Lt. Shri Omprakash, Aged
about 55 years, R/o 15 S.G.R., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ranjeet Singh @ Ranjeet Ram S/o Shri Moti Ram, R/o
Khothawali, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
(Jeep Owner)
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Sri Ganganagar
Road, Hanuman Junction through its Branch Manager.
(Jeep Insurer)
3. Harvindra Singh S/o Shri Satnam Singh, R/o Bhikhivind,
District Tarantaran (Punjab).
(Truck Owner)
(Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:25:15 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42222] (2 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016]
4. Parvindra Singh S/o Shri Satnam Singh, R/o Bhikhivind,
District Tarantaran (Punjab)
(Truck Driver)
5. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Moga (Punjab),
through its Branch Manager.
(Truck Insurer)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1400/2016
Smt. Sumitra Devi @ Savitri Devi W/o Lt. Shri Omprakash, Aged
about 55 years, R/o 15 S.G.R., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ranjeet Singh @ Ranjeet Ram S/o Shri Moti Ram, R/o
Khothawali, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
(Jeep Owner)
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Sri Ganganagar
Road, Hanuman Junction through its Branch Manager.
(Jeep Insurer)
3. Harvindra Singh S/o Shri Satnam Singh, R/o Bhikhivind,
District Tarantaran (Punjab).
(Truck Owner)
4. Parvindra Singh S/o Shri Satnam Singh, R/o Bhikhivind,
District Tarantaran (Punjab)
(Truck Driver)
5. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Moga (Punjab),
through its Branch Manager.
(Truck Insurer)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Vyas.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Purohit and Mr. Amit Purohit
for Insurance Company.
Mr. Durgesh Khatri for
Mr. N.K. Sharma for R3 and R4 only in
S.B.CMA no.1400/2016
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Judgment (Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:25:15 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:42222] (3 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016] 16/10/2024
1. These Civil Misc. Appeals, seeking enhancement, have been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter as 'the Act') against the common judgment and award dated 27.01.2016 (hereinafter as 'the impugned award') passed by the MACT, Sri Ganganagar [hereinafter as 'the learned tribunal'] in MAC Case No.12/2009, 13/2009 & 14/2009 respectively, whereby the learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions(filed under Section 166 of the Act) of the appellant/claimant and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in both MAC Case no.14/2009 and MAC Case no.13/2009 and Rs.2,82,468/- in MAC Case no.12/2009 along with interest @9% in all of the aforesaid claim petitions, while holding respondents No.1/owner (Owner of the Bolero Jeep) & Respondent no.2/insurance company (Insurance Company of the Bolero Jeep) jointly and severally liable to pay the respective compensation amounts. Since all the aforesaid appeals arise from the common impugned award, the same are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 15.08.2008, Kuldeep(Son of the appellant/claimant) alongwith his wife Sanjula (daughter-in-law of the appellant/claimant) and Jaspal (grandson of the appellant) was travelling in the Bolero Jeep bearing registration no. RJ31 U 0182, which was being driven by the deceased Krishanlal met with an accident with the truck bearing registration no. PB05 5L 5635 and as a result of the accident Kuldeep (hereinafter as 'the deceased-1'), Sanjula (hereinafter as (Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:25:15 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:42222] (4 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016] 'the deceased-2') and Jaspal (hereinafter as 'the deceased-3') died. Subsequently, the appellant/claimant filed MAC case no. 14/2009 (on account of death of the deceased-3), MAC case no.12/2009 (on account of death of the deceased-1) and MAC case no. 13/2009 (on account of death of the deceased-2) before the learned tribunal claiming compensation therein.
3. The respondents (except respondent no.4/driver of the truck) filed their reply to the claim petitions. And on the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned tribunal framed seven issues.
4. The appellant/claimant examined four witnesses(AW1 to AW4) and produced documentary evidences (from Ex.1 to Ex.16) in support the claim petitions. The respondents examined one witness NAW1(Vishal Madan) and produced documentary evidence(Ex. NAW3/1, 3/3, 3/5 and Ex. NAW 5/2).
5. After hearing all the parties the learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions of the appellant/claimant and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in both MAC Case no.14/2009 and MAC Case no.13/2009 and Rs.2,82,468/- in MAC Case no.12/2009 along with interest @9% in all of the aforesaid claim petitions, while holding respondents No.1/owner (Owner of the Bolero Jeep) & Respondent no.2/insurance company (Insurance Company of the Bolero Jeep) jointly and severally liable to pay the respective compensation amounts.
6. Aggrieved by the same, instant appeals have been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in the respective claim petitions. (Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:25:15 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:42222] (5 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016]
7. Since there is no disputes as to the facts of the case the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant have restricted his arguments to the quantum of compensation as awarded in the respective claim petitions.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant in S.B. CMA No. 1399/2016 (wherein the impugned award passed in MAC case no.14/2009 is under challenge) submits that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding a lump-sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased-3.
9. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant in S.B. CMA No. 1072/2016 (wherein the impugned award passed in MAC case no.12/2009 is under challenge) submits that the learned tribunal has erred in not considering the income of the deceased-1 as Rs. 7580/- per month which was evident from the Ex.18 (Reply dated 21.09.2012 by the concerned authority pursuant to the RTI Application) which clearly mentions that the deceased-1 was working as Lower Division Clerk(LDC) since 28.03.2006 and used to get Rs.7580/- per month subsequent to the completion of his probation period in the service on 28.03.2008 and the same was also verified and stated by AW-4 (Secretary of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Category 'B', Golupura) in his statement before the learned tribunal. He further submits that the learned tribunal has erred in not awarding any amount under the head of loss of estate. He further submits that the learned tribunal has erred in taking only 1/3 part (Rs.1017/-) of the income(after adding future prospect and after deducting 1/3 (Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:25:15 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:42222] (6 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016] on account of personal expenses) of the deceased for the calculation of loss of dependency.
10. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant in S.B. CMA No. 1400/2016 (wherein the impugned award passed in MAC case no.13/2009 is under challenge) submits that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding a lump-sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased-2. He further submits that appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation under the heads of loss of dependency, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. For this submission he has placed reliance on the following judgments:
Rajendra Singh and ors. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And ors., (2020) 7 SCC 256; Bhagwan Sahay and Ors. vs. Ganguram and ors., 2016 3 ACC 847; N. Jayashree and ors. vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. and ors., 2022 14 SCC 712.
11. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2/insurance company refutes the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ claimant in all the appeals and also submits in S.B. CMA No.1072/2016 that the learned tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3050/- per month as Ex.17A(Service Book of the deceased) mentions that deceased-1 would be getting Rs.3050/- per month until he clears the upcoming typing test.
12. Heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.
(Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:25:15 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:42222] (7 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016]
13. This court, with respect to S.B. CMA No. 1399/2016 (wherein the impugned award passed in MAC case no.14/2009 is under challenge) finds that the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of care and mental agony respectively as mentioned in the impugned award) for the mental agony suffered by the appellant/claimant as a result of untimely death of the deceased-3 who was 1.5 years old at the time of the accident. Further, the learned tribunal has failed to award any amount under the conventional heads.
13.1 This court also finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishan Gopal and Ors. Vs. Lala and Ors.[(2014) 1 SCC 244], where the age of the deceased child was 10 years has taken the notional income of the deceased child as Rs. 30,000/- p.a. looking to the facts and circumstances. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kurvan Ansari and Ors. Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Ors.[(2022) 1 SCC 317], where the age of the deceased child was 7 years, has taken notional income of the deceased child as Rs. 25,000/- p.a. and after applying Multiplier of 15 granted total amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- under the head of 'loss of dependency' and also an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to each of the parents under the head of filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto and Ors[(2023) 1 SCC 204], where the age of the deceased child was 12 years, has taken the notional income as Rs. 30,000/- p.a. including future prospect and applied Multiplier of 15 to arrive at the compensation awardable under the (Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:25:15 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:42222] (8 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016] head of 'loss of dependency' and awarded Rs. 50,000/- under the conventional heads.
13.2 Thus, looking to the age of the deceased child (i.e., 1.5 years) and peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case (the appellant/claimant being an old lady and the only survivor in the family) and in the light of the above cited judgments, this court deems it appropriate to take the notional income of the deceased child as Rs.15,000/- p.a. to arrive at a just compensation. Further, the applicable multiplier would be of 15 in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divya vs. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. [2022 INSC 1108]. Further, this court, looking to the fact that appellant/claimant is the sole claimant, calculates the award payable under the conventional heads to Rs.66,550/- and after rounding off the same, awards Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads.
14. Further, this court, with respect to S.B. CMA No. 1072/2016 (wherein the impugned award passed in MAC case no.12/2009 is under challenge) finds that the learned tribunal has failed to award any amount under the head of 'loss of estate' and the same deserves to be awarded in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi[(2017) 16 SCC 680]. Also, the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased-1 as Rs.3050/- on the basis of Ex.17A (Service Book of the deceased) as Ex.18 (Reply Dated 21.09.2012 to the Right To Information Application) wherein the Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi Category B, Golupura provided the information that the deceased-1 was working as Lower Division (Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:25:15 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:42222] (9 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016] Clerk(LDC) since 28.03.2006 and subsequent to his completion of the probation period on 28.03.2008 used to get Rs.7580/- per month. Moreover, the concerned person (AW-4) i.e., Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi Category B, Golupura (who provided the information, which is contained in Ex.18) verified the contents of Ex.18 before the learned tribunal in his statements. Thus, there was no reason for the learned tribunal to discard this clear evidence pertaining to the income of the deceased-1. Further, it is also important to note here that there is nothing available on record to show that deceased-1 has not cleared the said typing test as mentioned in Ex.17A, therefore the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2/insurance company that as per Ex.17A the deceased-1 would have received the increased salary only after clearing the upcoming typing test does not have any force. Thus, in absence to any evidence to the contrary, this court arrives at the conclusion that the income of the deceased-1 has to be assessed as Rs.7580/- per month as per Ex.18. Further, this court finds that the deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased-1 should be 1/2 in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors.,[(2009) 6 SCC 121] inasmuch as the appellant/claimant is the sole dependent since the deceased-2 (wife of the deceased-
1) and the deceased-3 (son of the deceased-1), who could have been considered as dependent on the income of the deceased-1, have died in the same accident.
(Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:25:15 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:42222] (10 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016]
15. Further, this court, with respect to S.B. CMA No. 1400/2016 (wherein the impugned award passed in MAC case no.13/2009 is under challenge) finds that the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- under the heads of loss of care and mental agony respectively as mentioned in the impugned award) for the mental agony suffered by the appellant/claimant as a result of untimely death of the deceased-
2. Further, the learned tribunal has erred in not awarding any amount under the heads of loss of dependency, funeral expense, loss of estate and consortium.
15.1 This court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 166 has made the following pertinent observation with respect to the calculation of just compensation in case of death of a homemaker:
"41. Therefore, on the basis of the above, certain general observations can be made regarding the issue of calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation which can be summarised as follows:
41.1. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law. 41.2. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all.(Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:25:15 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42222] (11 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016] 41.3. Various methods can be employed by the court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.
41.4. The court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally."
15.2 This court, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, deems it appropriate to take the notional income of the deceased-2 as Rs.3000/- per month. Further, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh and ors. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And ors., (2020) 7 SCC 256 and looking to the age of the deceased-2 i.e., 28 years, this court finds that future prospect @40% should be awarded as per the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi[(2017) 16 SCC 680] and also the applicable multiplier would be of 17. Further, this court is of the view that the appellant/claimant, the deceased-1 (husband of the deceased-2) and deceased-3 (son of the deceased-2) cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased-2 thus, while taking into consideration the same situation as that of a bachelor, deduction of 1/2 on account of personal expenses of the deceased-1 ought to be made in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors.,[(2009) 6 SCC 121]. (Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:25:15 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42222] (12 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016]
16. Thus, in view of the discussion in the above paragraphs, the compensation that is allowable to the appellant/claimant in the respective appeals is as under:
In S.B. C.M.A. No. 1399/2016:
S.N Particulars Amount as Amount as
o. awarded by awarded/mo
the learned dified by this
tribunal court
1. (add) Loss of dependency: Rs.50,000/- + Rs.2,25,000/-
15,000 (notional income per Rs.50,000/-
annum) x 15 (Multiplier) = [as awarded
Rs.2,25,000/- [A] under the
2. Rs. 70,000/-
heads of loss of
(add) Conventional heads [B] (rounded off)
care and
mental agony
respectively]
Gross Total [A]+[B] Rs.01,00,000/- Rs.02,95,000/-
[C] [D]
Enhanced Amount [D]-[C]
Rs.1,95,000/-
In S.B. C.M.A. No. 1072/2016:
S.N Particulars Amount as Amount as
o. awarded by the awarded/modif
learned ied by this
tribunal court
1. (add) Compensation towards loss Rs.2,07,468/- Rs.11,59,740/-
of dependency
7580 (per month) +3790(future
prospect @50%)- 5685 (1/2
deduction on account of personal
expenses) x 12 x 17 (Multiplier)
= Rs.11,59,740/- [A]
2. (add) Loss of Consortium 48,400 Rs. 50,000/- Rs.48,400/-
x 1= 48,400/- [B]
3. (add) Funeral Expenses [C] Rs.25,000 /- Rs.18,150/-
4. (add) Loss of Estate [D] nil Rs. 18,150/-
Gross Total [A]+[B]+[C]+[D] Rs.02,82,468/- Rs.12,44,440/-
[E] [F]
(Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:25:15 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42222] (13 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016]
Enhanced Amount [F]-[E]
Rs.9,61,972/-
In S.B. C.M.A. No. 1400/2016:
S.N Particulars Amount as Amount as
o. awarded by the awarded/modif
learned tribunal ied by this
court
1. (add) Compensation towards loss Rs.4,28,400/-
of dependency
50,000+50,000
3000 (notional income per
[as awarded
month) +1200 (future prospect
under the heads
@40%)- 2100 (1/2 deduction on
of loss of care
account of personal expenses) x
and mental
12 x 17 (Multiplier) =
agony
Rs.4,28,400/- [A]
2. (add) Loss of Consortium 48,400 respectively] Rs.48,400/-
x 1= 48,400/- [B]
3. (add) Funeral Expenses [C] Rs.18,150/-
4. (add) Loss of Estate [D] Rs. 18,150/-
Gross Total [A]+[B]+[C]+[D] Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.5,13,100/-
[E] [F]
Enhanced Amount [F]-[E]
Rs.4,13,100/-
17. Accordingly, instant misc. appeals preferred by the
respective appellant(s)/claimant(s) are partly allowed. The
impugned award dated 27.01.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC Case No.14/2009, MAC Case No.12/2009 and MAC Case No.13/2009 is enhanced and modified accordingly.
18. The appellant/claimant (in S.B. C.M.A. No.1399/2016) is thus held entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.1,95,000/-.
The appellant/claimant (in S.B. C.M.A. No.1072/2016) are entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.9,61,972/- and the appellant/ claimant (in S.B. C.M.A. No.1400/2016) is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.4,13,100/-. In all the appeals, the (Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:25:15 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:42222] (14 of 14) [CMA-1399/2016] appellant/claimant will be entitled to get the enhanced compensation along with interest @9% p.a. (same as awarded by the learned Tribunal) from 27.07.2009(date of filing of the claim petition).
19. The Appellant/claimant in all the respective appeals is held entitled to get the enhanced compensation as determined by this Court in the same manner as directed by the learned tribunal. The amount of compensation if any paid or disbursed shall be adjusted.
20. Record be set back forthwith.
21. No order as to costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 102-104/devesh/-
(Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:25:15 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)