Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kalli And Ors. vs Indra Raj Baira And Ors. on 13 October, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2006ACJ887, 2004WLC(RAJ)UC789
Bench: S.K. Keshote, Dinesh Maheshwari
JUDGMENT
S.K. Keshote and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed by claimants-appellants against the judgment dated 6.10.1998 of learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 923 of 1998.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this special appeal are that on 10.9.1995 in a motor vehicle accident Bhauri Lal sustained serious injuries and died on the spot.
3. Claimant-appellant No. 1 is widow of the deceased. Claimant-appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are minor children of deceased and the claimant-appellant Nos. 6 and 7 are his parents.
4. Deceased Bhauri Lal at the relevant time was about 28 years of age and was in permanent service of Police Department holding the post of Sub-Inspector. His monthly salary was Rs. 3,765 at the time of his death.
5. Claimants-appellants were totally dependent upon income of the deceased. They filed M.A.C. No. 1232 of 1995 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Tribunal') claiming a sum of Rs. 23,65,000 as compensation, against the owner of the vehicle and the driver thereof.
6. The insurer of the offending vehicle was impleaded as party to the claim petition. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed reply to the claim petition of the claimants-appellants. The insurance company has also filed its own reply.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues in the claim case.
8. Claimant-appellant No. 1 Kalyani alias Kalli, the wife of the deceased, was examined as AW 1. One Chouth Mal was examined as AW 2 on behalf of claimants-appellants. They filed relevant documents.
9. Nobody was examined on behalf of the non-claimant-respondents.
10. The respondent No. 3 produced the insurance policy.
11. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the sides, decided all the issues in favour of the claimants-appellants but while deciding the issue regarding amount of compensation, it has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,87,680.
12. Being aggrieved by the award dated 3.6.1998 of the Tribunal, the claimants-appellants filed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 923 of 1998 before the learned single Judge. Appeal was summarily dismissed by learned single Judge under the impugned judgment dated 6.10.1998, thus this appeal on behalf of the claimants-appellants.
13. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas , the learned Counsel for claimants-appellants contended that both, the learned Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge, have not taken into consideration the future prospects of increase in the income of the deceased. It is urged that the deceased, at the time of his death, was 28 years old and working as Sub-Inspector in Rajasthan Police. Sub-Inspector in Rajasthan Police has a good chance of further three or four promotions. Had he been alive, he would have served the department for thirty-two years and there was every likelihood of rise in his salary to a great extent by way of promotion, revision of pay scales and annual grade increments.
14. Mr. Sandeep Mathur, the learned Counsel for the claimants-appellants, submitted that after the death of the deceased the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission have been adopted by the State Government and there is tremendous rise in the salaries of the government servants.
15. He has further made reference to the policy of the government introducing the scheme of grant of three selection scales to the government servants on their completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Concluding his submissions, the learned Counsel for claimants-appellants submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in awarding a very low amount of compensation under all heads.
16. On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Bhati, the learned Counsel for the respondents, supported the award and the judgment of the learned Tribunal and the learned single Judge.
17. We have given our thoughtful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.
18. The deceased, at the time of his death, was 28 years old and his monthly income was Rs. 3,765. The deceased more or less had a stable job. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, , their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the facts of the case before it, observed that it will not be inappropriate to take a reasonably liberal view of the prospects of the future and in estimating the gross income it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the present actual income of the deceased.
19. There cannot be two views that the deceased had good prospects of advancement in the future career and thus we may not be in error in making a higher estimate of the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 7,530 as the gross income. From this, amount has to be deducted for his personal living expenses, the quantum of which again depends on various factors such as whether the style of living was Spartan or Bohemian. In the absence of evidence it is not unusual to deduct one-third of the gross income towards the personal living expenses of the deceased and treat the balance as the amount likely to have been spent on the members of the family and the dependants. The multiplier of 18 adopted in this case is not questioned by either of the learned Counsel for the parties.
20. Thus under the head of pecuniary loss the amount of compensation would be calculated as under:
The monthly income of the deceased, as taken above, is Rs. 7,530, the one-third amount for the personal living expenses comes to Rs. 2,510 and the balance amount is of loss of dependency which comes to Rs. 5,020 per month or Rs. 60,240 per year and if capitalized by taking multiplier of 18, which is appropriate as per the age of the deceased, the compensation would work out to Rs. 10,84,320 (Rs. 60,240 x 18). Under this head the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,43,680. Thus the difference of enhanced amount of compensation under this head is Rs. 4,40,640. On this enhanced amount of compensation the claimants-appellants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till 31.12.2000 and at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from 1.1.2001 till the payment thereof. The difference of the enhanced compensation is to be paid to the claimant-appellant No. 1, the widow of the deceased, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Claimant-appellant No. 1 shall keep this amount in the monthly interest scheme in any post office nearby her place of residence, in the joint names of herself and the claimant-appellant Nos. 2 to 5. Claimant-appellant Nos. 1 to 5 are free to use the amount of interest accruing on the deposit under the said scheme.
21. Appeal accordingly stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.