Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Naina @ Mumtaz & Anr vs Mahaveer & Ors on 6 February, 2017
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 610/2012
1. Naina @ Mumtaz S/o Sattar Aged 48 years.
2. Razia W/o Naina @ Mumtaz aged 45 years.
Both by caste Musalman resident of - Lambiya, Tehsil
Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mahaveer S/o Ishwar Jat, Resident of Pratappura, P.S.
Shambhugarh, District Bhilwara.
2. Durga Lal S/o Ram Lal Regard R/o Piplund, P.S. Gadhanpur,
at present Bijoliyu district Chittorgarh.
3. Divisional Manager, national Insurance co. Ltd. Khetawat
Market, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil A. Vyas.
Mr. P.S. Rathore.
Mr. S.S. Nirban.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Judgment 06/02/2017 This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.10.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,06,800/- to the appellants as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 23.10.2009.
The application for compensation was filed by the claimants, inter alia, with the averments that Insaf Ali was riding the motorcycle when the offending motorcycle being driven by the (2 of 4) [CMA-610/2012] respondent, collided with his motorcycle, resulting in grievous injuries to him to which he succumbed.
It was alleged that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the offending motorcycle. It was claimed that the deceased was aged 23 years and was earning Rs.400-500/- per day and based on the said averments a compensation of Rs.4,85,000/- was claimed.
The application was opposed by the respondents. The Tribunal framed five issues and after evidence was led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the motorcycle being driven by the non-applicant. Insurance Company was liable to make payment of the amount of compensation.
While computing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no material available on record to prove the income of the deceased at Rs.400-500/- per day and, therefore, assessed the income at Rs.3,600/- per month. The age of the deceased was assessed at 23 years and on account of he being unmarried, the amount towards personal expenses was deducted at 50% and, thereafter, a multiplier of 13 was applied and a compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- was awarded. Further a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards transportation and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love & affection was awarded.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed error in awarding compensation by using multiplier of 13, though the age of deceased was 23 years. It was submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly taken into consideration (3 of 4) [CMA-610/2012] the age of the parents of the deceased for awarding the amount of compensation which is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. : 2012 (11) SCC 738.
Learned counsel for the respondents supported the award impugned. It was submitted that looking to the fact that the deceased was unmarried, the Tribunal was justified in taking the age of the parents of the deceased and the award does not call for any interference.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel or the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The age of the deceased is not in dispute and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra) the age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration for award of compensation and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in applying multiplier of 13.
In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 for deceased aged 23 years, a multiplier of 18 has been provided.
In view thereof, the award impugned deserves to be modified and instead of a sum of Rs.2,80,800/- towards loss of income, a sum of Rs.3,88,800/- deserves to be awarded to the claimants.
In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The award impugned is modified to the extent that instead of a sum of Rs.3,06,800/- the claimants would be entitled to a sum of (4 of 4) [CMA-610/2012] Rs. 4,14,800/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 23.10.2009.
The amount of enhanced compensation be paid to the parents of the deceased in equal proportion in their saving bank account. The needful may be done by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment.
(ARUN BHANSALI)J. Sumit-84