Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Savita vs Kewal Chand @ Kailash & Ors on 4 September, 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
Smt. Savita vs. Kewal Chand @ Kailash
& ors.
S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1005/2008 u/s 173
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the
judgment and award dated 4.4.2008 passed by the
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in
M.A.C. Case No. 290/2004.
Date of Judgment: 04.09.2012
PRESENT
HON'BLE MRS. NISHA GUPTA, J.
Mr. J.R. Beniwal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. B.L.Choudhary, for the
appellant.
Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Mr. Sushil Purohit and Mr. Prashant Sharma
for the respondents.
BY THE COURT:
This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 4.4.2008 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in M.A.C. Case No. 290/2004 for enhancement of the compensation.
The contention of the present petitioner is that he has filed a claim petition for claiming compensation on account of death of Shiv Narayan who died in accident on 14.10.2003. The claim tribunal has awarded only meagre amount and hence this appeal for enhancement of the award.
The contention of the present petitioner is that the 2 amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced as the deceased was a S.A.S. Agent and he was getting Rs. 37,946/- per annum from the Central Government and Rs. 18,973/- from the State Government and he was also getting pension of Rs. 6636/-, whereas the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing income of the deceased only Rs.36,000/- per annum and looking to the age of the deceased, multiplier has also wrongly been applied and 1/3rd deduction has been done for the personal expenses. The learned Tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/4th of amount as the deceased was maintaining a big family and the compensation should be enhanced accordingly.
Per contra, the contention of the respondents is that there is no infirmity in the compensation awarded.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as the record of the Tribunal.
It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as an agent for National Small Savings Scheme and the documents produced by the claimant himself have suggested that his income for the Financial Year 1999-2000 was Rs. 31,712, in 2000-01 it was Rs. 39,792/- and in 2002-03 it was only Rs.16,445/-. Looking at the above documents and considering the oral evidence, the income of the deceased has been rightly assessed as Rs. 36,000/- per annum and looking to the fact that only present claimant is the dependent,1/3rd deduction for personal expenses has rightly been done and no fault can be found in the above.
3
The other contention of the present petitioner is that looking to the age of the deceased who was 63 years at the time of death, the appropriate multiplier according to the law laid down in Sarla Verma(Smt.) & ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr. ( (2009) 6 SCC 121), it should be 6. The submission of the claimant deserves to be sound and looking at the law laid down in Sarla Verm's Case(supra), the appropriate multiplier is 6 and the compensation should be enhanced accordingly.
All other compensations have been rightly awarded and no interference is needed.
In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed and after applying multiplier 6, the compensation comes to Rs.24,000x6 = Rs. 1,44,000/- and after deducting Rs. 1,20,000/- as already awarded by the learned Tribunal, the compensation comes to Rs.1,44,000- Rs.1,20,000/- = Rs. 24,000/- with 9% interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition,i.e. from 21.12.2004.
( NISHA GUPTA),J.
mlt/120