Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Phool Devi And Ors vs Ganpat Ram And Ors on 16 August, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4171/2017
1. Phool Devi W/o Late Poonam Chand Khodwal, aged about
52 years, R/o Swami Sarvanand Mohalla, Inside Delhi
Gate, Police Station Ganj, Ajmer
2. Mohit Khodwal S/o Late Poonam Chand Khodwal, aged
about 27 years, R/o Swami Sarvanand Mohalla, Inside
Delhi Gate, Police Station Ganj, Ajmer
3. Akash Khodwal S/o Late Poonam Chand Khodwal, aged
about 26 years, R/o Swami Sarvanand Mohalla, Inside
Delhi Gate, Police Station Ganj, Ajmer
----Appellants/Claimants
Versus
1. Ganpat Ram S/o Gopal Ram, aged 31 years, R/o Village
Thanwla, Tehsil Dega, District Nagaur (Driver And Sale
Letter Owner - Jeep No. RJ-03-C-0909)
2. Basant Lal Jain S/o Bhanwar Lal, aged 63 years, R/o 293,
Ramgarh Chouraha Fala, Tehsil Aaspur, District Dungarpur
(Registered Owner - Jeep No. RJ-03-C-0909)
3. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited,
Registered Office At Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg, 169,
Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai - 400020 And Also At 4th
Floor, KC Complex, Plot No. 711/4, Daulat Bagh, Ajmer
Through Its Manager (Insurer - Jeep No. RJ-03-C-0909)
----Respondents/Non-Claimants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
16/08/2022
The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') against the judgment and award (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 04:54:49 AM) (2 of 6) [CMA-4171/2017] dated 13.06.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (Raj.) (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 410/2013, by which the claim petition filed by the claimants appellants was allowed and an amount of Rs. 27,65,650/- has been awarded as compensation on account of death of Poonam Chand Khodwal in an accident occurred on 29.05.2013.
Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants appellants awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 27,65,650/- under various heads in favour of the claimants appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was 52 years of age at the time of accident. Counsel submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in applying the split multiplier by giving a finding that the deceased was in service. Counsel submits that multiplier of 11 should have been applied in the present case in the light of judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Jayasree Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2021 ACJ 2685. Counsel further submits that no amount towards future prospects has been awarded in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : (2017) 16 SCC 680. Counsel therefore, prays that re-computation of the award in the present case may be done in the light of judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of N. Jayasree (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra).
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 04:54:49 AM) (3 of 6) [CMA-4171/2017] petition of the claimants appellants has correctly taken into consideration the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment and award dated 13.06.2017 does not call for any interference by this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that under the Conventional Head the Tribunal has awarded an exorbitant amount to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000/-. Counsel submits that in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the claimants are entitled to get a lump sum amount of Rs. 70,000/- under the Conventional Head. Hence, the higher amount so awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be reduced to the sum of Rs. 70,000/-.
Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company, however, is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the appellant with respect to re-computation of the award in the present case in the light of judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of N. Jayasree (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra).
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 13.06.2017 passed by the Tribunal as well as the material available on the record.
Admittedly, the deceased was 52 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in applying the split multiplier in view of judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Jayasree (Supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Jayasree (Supra) has dealt with the identical issue in para Nos. 27 and 28 as under:-
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 04:54:49 AM)
(4 of 6) [CMA-4171/2017] "27. In Puttamma and Ors. vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Anr., (2013) 15 SCC 45, this Court was again considering a case where split multiplier for the purpose of calculation of dependency compensation was applied. It was held thus:
"32. For determination of compensation in motor accident claims under Section 166 this Court always followed multiplier method. As there were inconsistencies in the selection of a multiplier, this Court in Sarla Verma1 11 (2013) 15 SCC 45 prepared a table for the selection of a multiplier based on the age group of the deceased/victim. The 1988 Act, does not envisage application of a split multiplier.
33. In K.R. Madhusudhan v. Administrative Officer, (2011) 4 SCC 689 this Court held as follows: (SCC p.
692, paras 14-15) "14. In the appeal which was filed by the appellants before the High Court, the High Court instead of maintaining the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, reduced the same. In doing so, the High Court had not given any reason. The High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the Tribunal without disclosing any reason therefor. The High Court has also not considered the clear and corroborative evidence about the prospect of future increment of the deceased. When the age of the deceased is between 51 and 55 years the multiplier is 11, which is specified in the 2nd column in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Tribunal has not committed any error by accepting the said multiplier. This Court also fails to appreciate why the High Court chose to apply the multiplier of 6.
15. We are, thus, of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence on record, for having not considered the future prospects of the deceased and also for adopting a split multiplier method.
34. We, therefore, hold that in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record the tribunal or the court (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 04:54:49 AM) (5 of 6) [CMA-4171/2017] should not apply split multiplier in routine course and should apply multiplier as per decision of this Court in Sarla Verma as affirmed in Reshma Kumari."
28. From the above discussion it is clear that at the time of calculation of the income, the Court has to consider the actual income of the deceased and addition should be made to take into account future prospects. Further, while the evidence in a given case may indicate a different percentage of increase, standardization of the addition for future prospects should be made to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. In Pranay Sethi2, the Constitution Bench has directed addition of 15% of the salary in case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years as a thumb rule, where a deceased had a permanent job. In view of the above, the High Court was not justified in applying split multiplier in the instant case."
Therefore, the Tribunal was not right in applying the split multiplier in the present case. In the light of judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Jayasree (Supra), the multiplier of 11 is required to be applied in the present case while calculating the award. Further the amount to the extent of 15% is required to be added towards future prospects in light of judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Further the amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- under the conventional head is required to be reduced to a lump sum amount of Rs. 70,000/-.
Thus, the award is re-computed as under:-
Annual income (As awarded Rs.4,07,860/- per annum by the Tribunal) Multiplier to be applied 11 4,07,860 X 11 = Rs.44,86,460/-
15% towards Future Rs.44,86,460/- + Rs. 6,72,969
Prospects = Rs. 51,59,429/-
Deduction 1/3rd Rs. 51,59,429 - Rs. 17,19,809
= Rs. 34,39,620/-
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 04:54:49 AM)
(6 of 6) [CMA-4171/2017]
Towards Conventional Head Rs. 70,000
Total amount awardable Rs. 34,39,620 + Rs. 70,000
= Rs. 35,09,620
Less amount awarded by the Rs. 35,09,620/- - Rs.27,65,650/-
Tribunal = Rs. 7,43,970/-
Enhanced amount of Rs. 7,43,970/-
compensation
Thus, an amount of Rs. 7,43,970/- is enhanced in the present case. The respondent- Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 7,43,970/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 13.06.2017 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made.
It is further ordered that out of the enhanced amount, the Tribunal shall disburse a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the Saving Bank Account of the claimant appellant No.1 and the balance amount of the enhanced compensation be invested in any Nationalized Bank initially for a period of three years and interest accrued on the said amount shall be paid to the claimant appellant No.1 on monthly basis.
With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ritu/9 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 04:54:49 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)