Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Manju Devi And Ors vs Amit Kumar Sharma And Anr on 23 February, 2022
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4279/2017
1. Smt. Manju Devi W/o Late Shri Sohan Lal Sood, aged 48
years
2. Hitansh S/o Late Shri Sohan Lal Sood, aged 4 years,
Minor Through His Natural Guardian And Mother Smt.
Manju Devi W/o Late Shri Sohan Lal Sood
Both residents of House No. 48, Ganesh Nagar III,
Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Claimants-Appellants
Versus
1. Amit Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Nanagram Sharma, R/o
204, Mohalla Bada Bas, Bhanpur Kala, Tehsil Jamwa
Ramgadh, District Jaipur (Raj.) (Driver as well as Owner
of Motorcycle No. RJ-14-BX-0976)
2. The National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office,
Near Jyoti Nagar Turn, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur
(Raj.) Through Regional Manager. (Ins. Co. Motorcycle
No. RJ-14-BX-0976)
----Non-Claimants-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Sharma for
Mr. Sandeep Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishipal Agarwal through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Judgment Reserved on : 05/02/2022
Judgment Pronounced on : 23/02/2022
1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Appellants are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation decided by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan in Claim Case No.962/2014.
(Downloaded on 24/02/2022 at 09:14:01 PM)
(2 of 4) [CMA-4279/2017] By the impugned award dated 09.05.2017, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.29,64,000/- along with 6% interest from the date of application against claim of Rs.97,47,152/-.
2. In brief, the case of the claimants is that Sohan Lal Sood aged about 51 years, who was husband of claimant-Manju Devi and father of claimant-Hitansh, was crossing road to purchase medicines on 20.09.2014 at about 07:30 p.m. At the same time, a rash and negligent motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-14-BX- 0976 dashed against him causing serious injuries which resulted in death of Sohan Lal on 21.09.2014 while getting treatment in the referred hospital. For the accident aforesaid, Galta Gate Police Station case No.335 dated 21.09.2014 was registered and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet. Ex.12 is the certificate of insurance which shows that the offending motorcycle was insured with respondent No.2-National Insurance Company Limited. The factum of motor vehicle accident and insurance of the vehicle is proved by the oral and documentary evidences available on record and are not challenged in this appeal.
3. Mr. Kapil Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants contends that without any basis, the Tribunal deducted Rs.2338/- against income-tax payment whereas the salary certificate of the deceased would show that at the time of his death, Sohan Lal was paying Rs.1244/- as income-tax. Grievance is that 1/3rd deduction against personal expenses of the deceased is also not justified. The learned Tribunal has not considered award of any amount against future prospect of the deceased. Multiplier of 11 has been applied by the Tribunal which should have been at much higher (Downloaded on 24/02/2022 at 09:14:01 PM) (3 of 4) [CMA-4279/2017] pedestal considering the prospect of deceased. The interest should have been 12% instead of 6% as awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for Natonal Insurance Company contends that just and adequate compensation has been decided by the Tribunal and the statutory purpose is not to make excessive compensation.
5. Considering the number of dependency which includes the wife and a son aged about one and half years, 1/3 rd deduction for personal expenses of the deceased is consistent with the standard adopted in Sarla Verma's case reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121. Therefore, the same requires no interference. Likewise considering the age of the deceased which was between 50 to 55 years, the appropriate multiplier would be of 11. Hence, the same requires no interference.
Ex.15 is salary certificate issued by the Employer in respect of the deceased, who was a Clerk in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The said certificate shows that gross salary of the deceased was Rs.32,397.70/- including Rs.225/- as transport allowance. The deduction shows that Rs.1244/- was being deducted against income-tax. Deposition of A.W.3-N.K.Gaur, who is the Chief Manager in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, would show that the monthly salary of the deceased in July, 2014 (the month of accident) was enhanced to Rs.37,693.95/- w.e.f. 01.11.2012. Thus, the actual monthly income of the deceased on the date of death was Rs.37,693.95/- taken as Rs.37,694/-.
There is nothing on record to suggest that on the enhanced amount, double income-tax would be payable. Therefore, (Downloaded on 24/02/2022 at 09:14:01 PM) (4 of 4) [CMA-4279/2017] permissible exclusion for the purpose of income-tax may be taken as Rs.1500/- instead of Rs.1244/- after enhancement of monthly salary. Thus, Rs.1500/- against income-tax payment and Rs.225/- which was transport allowance, must have been spent against transportation, are fit to be excluded to ascertain the loss of dependency. Thus, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.37,694/- minus Rs.1725/- equal to Rs.35,969/-. 1/3 rd is deductible for personal expenses of the deceased. After deduction amount comes to Rs.23,979/-. 15% of this amount is payable against future prospect as decided in Pranay Sethi's case reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. Thus, multiplicand is calculated as Rs.23,979+3597(15%)=Rs.27,576X12=Rs.3,30,912/-. This is multiplied with multiplier of 11, the amount comes to Rs.36,40,032/-.
6. Besides the aforesaid, both the claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each for loss of consortium and Rs.30,000/- for funeral expenses and loss to the estate. Thus, the total payable compensation is calculated at Rs.37,50,032/-.
7. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of interest decided by the Tribunal. Other findings of the Tribunal including directions for disbursement of compensation amount are hereby affirmed.
The appeal stands allowed to the extent aforesaid.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J Hemant (Downloaded on 24/02/2022 at 09:14:01 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)