Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jalaur Singh And Others vs Barkat And Others on 26 March, 2012
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.6562/2011 Jalaur Singh @ Dilawar Singh & Anr. Vs. Barkat & ors. Date of Order ::: 26.03.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Vinay Mathur, for the appellants. Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, for respondent no.4. ***
Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, Advocate is directed to accept the notice on behalf of respondent No.4-Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to supply a copy of the memo of appeal to Mr. Agarwal, today itself.
3. Notices need not be issued to respondents no.1 to 3.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award dated 11th July, 2011 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur.
5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24th April, 2009, the deceased Jasvindar Singh @ Chhindu Singh was sleeping on a Bench opposite to M/s Jarnail Gurmail Motor Repairing Works, Auto Mobile Nagar, Jaipur. It is alleged that during that period one trolla truck bearing registration no.RJ-14-3G-0502 being driven by its driver, violating the traffic signals, suddenly emerged at a fast speed and hit Jasvindra Singh @ Chindu Singh and trampled him to death. One FIR No.159/2009 came to be registered at Police Station Galta Gate, Jaipur with regard to the said accident wherein the police, after completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet in the Court. The claimants-appellants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after completion of inquiry, decreed an amount of Rs.3,77,700/- in favour of the appellants-claimants and against the respondents, to be paid severally and jointly. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount under the award, the appellants have beseeched to enhance the quantum of compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant focused his arguments only on one ground that albeit the Tribunal considered minimum wages of Rs.155/- per day to be the income of the deceased, but for the purpose of computing the amount of loss of dependency, considered the minimum wages only for 26 days, whereas the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of 30 days instead of 26 days. Learned counsel further submitted that if the income based on minimum wages of thirty days of the deceased is considered then the income comes to Rs.4,650/-. Since the deceased was bachelor and 50% is reduced towards his personal and living expenses, then the loss of dependency comes as under:
Rs.2325 X 12 = Rs.27,900/-
7. The deceased Jasvindra Singh @ Chhindu Singh was found to have been 19 and half years of age by the Tribunal but the age of his mother was 43 years and the Tribunal is found to have applied the multiplier of 15 as per the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 contended that in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (in CIVIL APPEAL NO 3483 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP [C] No.8648 of 2007). The Apex Court has suggested the multiplier of 14, where the victim falls in the age group of 41 to 45 years. Hence, if the income of the deceased equivalent to minimum wages of 30 days is considered, then the multiplier also should be taken into consideration, what has been suggested by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma(Supra).
9. Learned counsel for the appellant does not object to it. Thus the total loss of income comes to Rs.27,900X14 = Rs.3,90,600/-.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has opposed to it.
11. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the following extent.
The appellants-claimants are entitled to claim Rs.4,05,600/- instead of Rs.3,77,700/- from the respondents. The claimants are also held entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing the claim petition, till the amount is actually realised.
12. The rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged.
13. The impugned award stands modified as indicated hereinabove.
14. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI),J.
Pcg All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Pooran Chand Gupta Personal Assistan