Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Pyari & Ors vs R S R T C & Ors on 4 December, 2012
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
In the High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench Jaipur S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1692/2001 Smt. Rampyari & Ors. Versus R.S.R.T.C. & Anr. Date of Judgment :::: 4th December 2012 PRESENTS Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi Mr. Vinay Mathur, for appellants. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, for respondent No.1. *******
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T., Jaipur City (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in M.A.C. No.708/97 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,05,000/-with the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till realization, for the death of Gullaram, who was the husband of the appellant No.1, father of the appellants No.2, 3 and 4 and son of appellant No.5.
2. In the instant case, the deceased Shri Gullaram died as a result of accident caused by the driver of the respondent No.1, driving the bus bearing registration No.RJ-14-P-3606, and when said Gullaram was going on his motor-cycle bearing No.RRL-3499. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record and believing the age of the deceased to be 30 years, his income to be Rs.2100/- per month, and applying the multiplier of 15 has awarded Rs.2,88,000/- towards the dependency loss to the claimants. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and other expenditure, and thus awarded total amount of Rs.3,05,000/- as compensation.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Vinay Mathur, for the appellants that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the claimants as regards the income of the deceased and has also not applied the proper multiplier as per the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121.
4. However, learned counsel Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, appearing for the respondent No.1 R.S.R.T.C., submitted that the claimants had failed to produce any reliable evidence with regard to the income of the deceased and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly believed the income of the deceased to be Rs.2100/- per month as per the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time.
5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the evidence on record, it transpires that the claimants except adducing oral evidence, have not adduced any other cogent evidence to prove the income of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.70/- per day and Rs.2100/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly deducted Rs.500/- towards his personal expenditure considering the number of dependents. However, so far as application of multiplier is concerned, the Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that as per the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the proper multiplier to be applied would be 17, when the deceased was aged about 30 years, whereas the Tribunal has applied the Tribunal multiplier of 15 only. Under the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed to the limited extent that instead of applying multiplier of 15, the multiplier of 17 should have been applied. Hence, if the income of the deceased is considered to be Rs.2100/- per month and Rs.500/- is deducted towards his personal expenditure, the total dependency loss to the claimants would be 1600x12 i.e. Rs.19,200/-, and if the multiplier of 17 is applied to the same, the total dependency loss would come to Rs.3,26,400/- instead of Rs.2,88,000/-. The rest of the amount awarded by the Tribunal under other heads being proper, it is held that the appellants-claimants would be entitled to the additional amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.38,400/- on which the respondents shall pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award made by the Tribunal till its realization.
6. The appeal stands partly allowed, accordingly.
(Bela M. Trivedi), J.
R.Vaishnav Certificate:
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Ramesh Vaishnav Jr.P.A.