Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
R S R T C Through Chief Manager And Anot vs Subhash Jangid And Others on 18 July, 2012
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.2099/2012. Raj.State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur & Anr. Vs. Smt.Phooli Devi & Anr. 2) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.2101/2012. Raj.State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Jangid & Anr. Date of Order :- July 18, 2012. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri V.P. Mathur for the appellants. Shri Jugal Kishore Agrawal and Shri Raj Kumar Tongawat for the respondents. ****** BY THE COURT:-
These two appeals have been preferred against the common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu dated 11/4/2012 assailing the quantum of compensation of Rs.3,68,300/- awarded to claimant-respondent No.1 Smt.Phooli Devi and Rs.95,900/- to claimant-respondent No.1-Subhash Jangid. While Smt.Phooli Devi filed claim petition claiming compensation for the death of her son Motilal, whereas Subhash Jangid filed claim petition for the permanent disability sustained by him to the extent of 10-15%in the same accident, which took place on 11/11/2008.
Learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC has argued that Tribunal has awarded compensation deducting 50% of the income of the deceased on the ground that he was a unmarried boy but it was wholly unjustified while adopting multiplier of 17, whereas it ought to have applied the multiplier of 13 on the basis of age of his mother i.e. Smt.Phooli Devi. Learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Shyam Singh and Others : 2011(3) T.A.C. 625 (S.C.) in support of his argument.
In the case of Subhash Jangid, it is argued that the award is towards the higher side because the permanent disability was to the extent of 10-15% but the learned Tribunal accepted it to be only 10% and on that basis, it has computed the income of Subhash Jangid to be Rs.3000/- per month, which is on higher side. Learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC has argued that the deceased must have held to have been negligent due to which, accident of head on collusion happened. The Tribunal has wrongly discarded this argument.
Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents has opposed the appeals citing the judgment of Supreme Court in P.S. Somanathan & Ors. Vs. District Insurance Officer & Anr. : 2011 DNJ (SC) 232 and argued that Supreme Court in that case held that the multiplier on the basis of age of the deceased can be considered in view of the reasoning given by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is also argued that this court in Smt.Nana Devi & Ors. VS. Gurumel Singh & Ors. (SBCMA NO.870/2001 & 21 other appeals) has enhanced amount of compensation to Rs.1,50,000/- wherein age of the children at the time of accidental death was upto 5 years, Rs.2,00,000/- wherein age of the children at the time of accidental death was more than 5 years but not more than 10 years and Rs.2,50,000/- wherein age of the children at the time of accidental death was more than 10 years but not more than 15 years.
Counsel for respondents further argued that in the case of Smt.Phooli Devi, which was a death case, substantive compensation is only Rs.3,06,000/- and Rs.45,300/- has been additionally awarded for actual medical expenses for treatment of the deceased. Apart therefrom, further amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded for loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- has been awarded for funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- has been awarded for transportation charges.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award, I find that so far as argument of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is concerned, Tribunal rightly rejected the same because it examined the site plan Exh.P.3 to arrive at the said finding that the Jeep was being driven on its correct side and the bus driver had taken the bus to the side of the Jeep and hit the jeep and it is on that basis the police filed challan against the bus driver. The total compensation is only for Rs.3,06,000/-, which cannot be said to be towards the higher side in an accidental death case. Multiplier of 17 has rightly been adopted on the basis of age of the deceased to be 25 years as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra, which has been corroborated by the Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment in P.S. Somanathan supra. Even otherwise, this Court has passed a detailed judgment in Smt.Nana Devi supra relying on the various judgments of Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Syed Ibrahim and Others and Kaushlya Devi Vs. Shri Karan Arora and Others and various other judgments. Therefore, award of compensation for Rs.3,68,300/- cannot be said to be towards the higher side. Compensation awarded to claimant-respondent No.1 Subhash Jangid for a sum of Rs.95,900/- is also correct considering his permanent disability, age and his income. The Tribunal has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in P.S. Somanathan supra to deviate from that rule.
I do not find any merit in either of the appeals. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
Anil/8-9 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed ANIL GOYAL Sr.P.A. Cum JW IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR.
O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.1776/2012.
IN S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.2099/2012.
Raj.State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur & Anr.
Vs. Smt.Phooli Devi & Anr.
Date of Order :- July 18, 2012. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri V.P. Mathur for the appellants. Shri Jugal Kishore Agrawal and Shri Raj Kumar Tongawat for the respondents. ******
Consequent upon disposal of the main appeal, this stay application does not survive and the same is accordingly rejected.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
Anil/8 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed ANIL GOYAL Sr.P.A. Cum JW IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR.
O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.1778/2012.
IN S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.2101/2012.
Raj.State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur & Anr.
Vs. Subhash Jangid & Anr.
Date of Order :- July 18, 2012. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri V.P. Mathur for the appellants. Shri Jugal Kishore Agrawal and Shri Raj Kumar Tongawat for the respondents. ******
Consequent upon disposal of the main appeal, this stay application does not survive and the same is accordingly rejected.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
Anil/9 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed ANIL GOYAL Sr.P.A. Cum JW