Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Hanuman Sahai Saini S/O Late Shri ... vs Dharam Pal S/O Shri Kaluram on 28 November, 2018
Author: Prakash Gupta
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5482/2018
1. Hanuman Sahai Saini S/o Late Shri Gullaram, Aged About
46 Years, B/c Mali R/o Sitawali Dhani Benad Road
Jhotwara Jaipur
2. Nacchi @ Nanchi Devi W/o Shri Hanuman Sahai Saini,
Aged About 43 Years, B/c Mali R/o Sitawali Dhani Benad
Road Jhotwara Jaipur
3. Monu S/o Shri Hanuman Sahai Saini, Aged About 25
Years, B/c Mali R/o Sitawali Dhani Benad Road Jhotwara
Jaipur
----Appellants-Claimants
Versus
1. Dharam Pal S/o Shri Kaluram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Kakdi Neem Ka Thana Sikar District Sikar (Raj) (Driver Of
Bus No. Rj-14-Pa-8633)
2. G.R. Global Academy, A-51 Hanuman Nagar Khatipura
Jaipur (Owner Of Bus No. Rj-14-Pa-8633) And Through
Authority Letter Owner Viswajeet Punia S/o Shri Shankar
Lal Punia Lecturer Shri Balaji College Of Engineering And
Technolony Aged About 34 Years R/o Flat No. 301 Gopal
Tower 22 Gopalbari Jaipur
3. Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd., Ist Floor
Royal World Sansar Chandra Road Opposite City Centre
Jaipur 302001 (Insurer Of Bus No. Rj-14-Pa-8633)
----Non-Claimants-Respondents
4. Smt. Suraj Devi W/o Late Shri Sunil Kumar, aged about 31 years, B/c Case Mali R/o Sitawali Dhani Benad Road Jhotwara Jaipur
5. Harsh S/o Late Shri Sunil Kumar, Aged About 7 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Suraj Devi B/c Case Mali R/o Sitawali Dhani Benad Road Jhotwara Jaipur
----Claimants-Respondents
6. Anil S/o Shri Hanuman Sahai Saini, aged about 22 years, B/c Case Mali R/o Sitawali Dhani Benad Road Jhotwara Jaipur
7. Kiran D/o Shri Hanuman Sahai Saini, aged about 22 (2 of 3) [CMA-5482/2018] years, B/c Case Mali R/o Sitawali Dhani Benad Road Jhotwara Jaipur
----Claimants/Proforma-Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.L. Dhakar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judgment 28/11/2018 This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,92,320/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the tribunal erred in not considering Monu, Anil & Kiran as dependents of the deceased. They are dependents on the deceased and therefore, instead of 1/2, 1/5 of the income is liable to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the material available on record.
The claim-petition was filed by the appellants seeking compensation on account of death of Sunil Kumar in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 14.05.2013. The tribunal considering the deceased as semi-skilled labourer and assessed his income as Rs.4,576/- per month on the basis of prevalent rate of minimum wages fixed by the State. Indisputably, father of the (3 of 3) [CMA-5482/2018] deceased Hanuman Sahai Saini is alive and he is a Contractor, therefore, claimants Monu, Anil & Kiran, who are the children of Hanuman Sahai Saini, cannot be said to be depended upon the deceased. Thus, the tribunal rightly deducted one third of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.3,050/- (4,576x2/3). As the deceased was aged about 25 years, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, an addition of 40% was added by the tribunal towards future prospect of the deceased, which comes to Rs.1,220/-. Further, multiplier of 18 was rightly applied by the tribunal. In this way, amount of compensation comes to Rs.9,22,320/- [4,270(3,050+1,220)x12x18]. The tribunal further awarded an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards non pecuniary heads. Thus, the total amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal comes to Rs.9,92,320/- (9,22,320+70,000), which is just and reasonable and the same does not call for any interference by this Court.
Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J SG/70 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)