Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
R S R T C Through Chairman And Others vs Sohan Lal And Others on 21 August, 2013
Author: R.S.Chauhan
Bench: R.S.Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1720/2013 (RSRTC & Anr. Vs. Sohanlal & Ors.) Date of Order :- 21.08.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Virendra Agrawal, for the appellants. The claimant-appellant, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (the RSRTC, for short) is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 29.3.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa whereby the learned Judge has granted a compensation of Rs.7,36,252/- in favour of the claimants-respondents No.2 to 5.
The brief facts of the case are that on 5.2.2011, around 2.30 P.M., while Sitaram, was going at NH-11, Manpur Chauraha, he was hit by a Bus bearing registration number, RJ-07-PA-2273 which was being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No.6, Rajaram, under the employment of the appellant-Corporation. Consequently he suffered serious injuries. Ultimately, he succumbed to his injuries. The claimants-respondents being legal representatives of the deceased, preferred a claim petition. In order to buttress their case, the claimants-respondents examined two persons and submitted a few documents. However, the appellants neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has passed the award, as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this court.
Mr. Virendra Agrawal, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, according to the Post-Mortem Report, the deceased, Sitaram, was 20 years old. However, the learned Tribunal has taken his age to be between 26 to 30 years. But there is no evidence to show that he was between the said ages.
Secondly, although the claimants had pleaded that the deceased was working as a contractor for construction of houses, and although they had claimed that he was earning Rs.16,000/- per month, they have failed to establish these two facts. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in concluding that the deceased was earning Rs.3500/- per month. Instead, the learned Tribunal should have taken his income on a notional basis to be Rs.15,000/- per annum in accordance with the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicle Act. Hence, the learned Tribunal has faulted in calculating the income of the deceased. Thus, the very basis for grant of compensation is misplaced.
Thirdly, without any rhyme or reason, the learned Tribunal has taken the future prospects of increase in income as 30% of the income taken by it. Therefore, there is no reason why the future prospects of increase in income should have been taken by the Tribunal in absence of any evidence.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned award.
An age shown in the Post-Mortem Report is merely an approximate age. For, while a post-mortem is conducted, the body is not subjected to any test, radiologically or otherwise, in order to determine the actual age of the deceased. Moreover, in the present case, Lalita, the wife of the deceased, has shown her age to be 24 years at the time of filing of the claim petition. Ordinarily a wife tends to be younger than her husband. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in concluding that the deceased must have been older than his wife at the time of his death. Hence, the learned Tribunal was justified in concluding that his age should be taken to be between 26-30 years at the time of his death. Hence, the age calculated by the Tribunal cannot be faulted.
Once the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was employed, the notional income given in the Second Scheduled cannot be considered. In case where the income is not proven by the claimant, the Tribunal would be justified in taking the Minimum Wages Act as a guideline in order to assess the income of the deceased. In the present case, the claimants had pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.16,000/- per month. But this fact could not be established by them through any evidence. But considering the fact that the deceased was employed, the learned Tribunal was justified in ignoring the statutory presumption and in relying on the Minimum Wages Act and in concluding that he would be earning Rs.3500/- per month. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal is legally justified.
In the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. [(2012) 6 SCC 421], the Apex Court has disagreed with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009)6 SCC 121]. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had opined that while calculating the income for future prospects, the benefit of future prospects should not be given to those who are self-employed or have a fixed salary. This particular observation made by the Apex Court was disagreed by the Apex Court itself in the case of Santosh Devi (supra). In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined as under:-
Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation.
Thus, presently the Apex Court is of the opinion that even in the case of those who are self-employed, or are on a fixed wages, the future prospects of increase in income to the extent of 30% should be taken and the benefit of same should be given to the claimants. Interestingly, in the case of Santosh Devi (supra), the Apex Court has, by way of illustration, included a case of mason. Considering the views expressed in the case of Santosh Devi (supra), the learned Judge was certainly justified in giving the benefit of future prospects of increase in the income to the extent of 30% to the claimants.
For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any merit in this appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed.
[R.S. Chauhan] J.
GS All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Govind Sharma, P