Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Kiran Kanwar & Ors vs Om Prakash & Anr on 19 November, 2010
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 733/1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
Smt. Kiran Kanwar & Ors.
Versus
Om Prakash & Ors.
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 733/1999
Date of Judgment : 19.11.2010
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI
Mr. Ravi Panwar on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Panwar for
the appellants
Mr. Manoj Bissa on behalf of Mr. Sanjeev Johari
for the respondents
BY THE COURT
Appellants Smt. Kiran Kanwar widow of late Shri Gulab Singh; Surendra Pal Singh, Narendra Pal Singh and Harendra Pal Singh, sons of late Shri Gulab Singh; Kumari Santosh and Kumari Kailash Kanwar, daughters of late Shri Gulab Singh, by way of this appeal challenged the judgment and award dated 07.06.1999 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur in MACT Case No. 1053/1995, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.2,56,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of submission of the claim petition. The learned Tribunal passed the Page 1 of 5 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 733/1999 above award against the present respondent No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
The appellants challenged the claim award mainly on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in limiting the claim of the appellants to a sum of Rs.2,56,000/- only and that the amount of compensation so assessed and awarded by the learned Tribunal is against the well-settled principles of law governing the assessment of quantum of compensation and therefore, the appellants challenged the findings of the learned Tribunal on the issue No. 3 and further prayed to enhance the amount of compensation.
To decide this appeal, it would be proper to narrate the facts of the case in the nutshell. As per the claim petition, on 06.06.1995 at about 4.00 p.m., deceased Gulab Singh, who was a retired Subedar of the Army, was travelling in jeep No. RST 4461. The jeep was being driven by Mohammad Hussain. At about 4.00 p.m., when the Jeep was coming from Rohit to Jodhpur, a tempo taxi No. MH-19-C-5254 caused accident by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo taxi and by that accident the jeep lost balance. Due to that accident grievous injuries were caused to Gulab Singh, who died on the spot. On that report a Page 2 of 5 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 733/1999 criminal case was registered. The dependents of deceased Gulab Singh filed the claim petition against the driver of the tempo taxi No. MH-19-C- 5254 and the New India Assurance Company Limited.
The learned Tribunal framed 3 issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and decided the issue No. 3 partly in favour of the present appellants and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,56,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of submission of the claim petition.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned Tribunal erred in deciding the issue No. 3 because the deceased was working as Bar Manager in the Hotel City Palace and his income was Rs.3000/- per month, whereas the learned Tribunal did not rely upon the certificate of income of Rs.3000/- per month and awarded lesser compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the learned Tribunal seriously erred in determining lower multiplier as well as multiplicand and looking to the age of the deceased as well as his income, higher multiplier and multiplicand deserves to be determined.
Page 3 of 5S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 733/1999 Learned counsel for the respondents argued that Ex.1 certificate issued by the Manager of the Hotel City Palace clearly states that the deceased was working since 15.05.1995 to 06.06.1995 at the salary of Rs.3000/- per month, thus, the deceased served only for 21 days in the Hotel City Palace. The learned Tribunal appreciated this fact that the deceased was purely temporarily engaged in this service, therefore, the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 3 determined the dependency of the deceased as Rs.1700/- to Rs.1800/- per month and further the multiplier of 11 was applied to assess the quantum of the compensation. Regarding the loss of the agriculture income, the learned Tribunal held that the dependents of the deceased are adult, therefore, the learned Tribunal assessed no loss of agriculture income.
I have pondered over the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the award passed by the learned Tribunal.
Learned Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 3 partly in favour of the appellants- claimants, considered all the aspects including the loss of the agriculture income as well as Page 4 of 5 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 733/1999 certificate Ex.1 issued by the Manager of the Hotel City Palace. In my view, the learned Tribunal did not err in assessing the correct income of the deceased and looking to the age and the income of the deceased, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal erred in determining lower multiplier as well as lower multiplicand because as per the claim petition filed, 3 daughters of the deceased were married who were impleaded as non-claimants No. 3, 4, 5 and so far as sons of the deceased Gulab Singh are concerned, Surendra Pal Singh was major at the relevant time and Narendra Pal Singh and Harendra Pal Singh were at the age of 12 and 10 years respectively. The dependency of daughters Kumari Santosh Kanwar and Kumari Kailash Kanwar could only be determined upto the age of majority, thus, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the learned Tribunal regarding the quantum of the compensation does not require any interference. Hence the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed with no order as to costs.
[KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI],J.
Pramod Page 5 of 5