Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1991 Supreme(Raj) 847

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
D.L.Mehta, J.
Vimla Devi And Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Chaman And Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 370 of 1990.
Decided On : 18-09-1991

Advocates:
For the Appellant:Mr. G.K. Bhartiya, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. H.M. Bhargava, Advocate.

The court laid down the following legal principles: 1. There should be no deduction in compensation on account of the possibility of remarriage of the widow. 2. At least 75% of the deceased's income should be considered as dependency amount. 3. The span of life of 65 years is a fair estimate of the deceased's life expectancy. 4. There should be a deduction of 15% in compensation on account of lump sum payment. 5. The apportionment of compensation should be made in a manner that ensures the proper maintenance and education of the deceased's dependents.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - AWARD - ENHANCEMENT - LUMP SUM PAYMENT - DEDUCTION - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - REMARRIAGE OF WIDOW - NO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF POSSIBILITY OF REMARRIAGE - DEPENDENCY AMOUNT - 75% OF INCOME - SPAN OF LIFE - 65 YEARS - LUMP SUM PAYMENT - DEDUCTION OF 15% - APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION - MARRIAGEABLE AGE OF GIRL - 21 YEARS - EDUCATION AND MARRIAGE EXPENSES - TO BE CONSIDERED - AMOUNT AWARDED TO CHILDREN - MEAGRE - ENHANCED.
Fact of the Case:

Deceased Shankar Singh, a truck driver, died in a motor vehicle accident due to the rash and negligent driving of a tanker. His wife, sons, and daughter filed a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants, considering the deceased's income, dependency amount, span of life, and multiplier. However, the claimants appealed, arguing that the compensation was inadequate.
Issues: 1. Whether there should be a deduction in compensation on account of the possibility of remarriage of the widow? 2. What percentage of the deceased's income should be considered as dependency amount? 3. What should be the span of life considered for calculating compensation? 4. Whether there should be a deduction in compensation on account of lump sum payment? 5. How should the compensation be apportioned among the claimants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Remarriage of Widow: - The court held that there should be no deduction in compensation on account of the possibility of remarriage of the widow. - The court observed that the Constitution of India guarantees equal treatment and prohibits discrimination against women. - The court further observed that remarriage of widows is encouraged by various legislations and that any impediment or restriction on remarriage is against the spirit of the Constitution. 2. Dependency Amount: - The court held that at least 75% of the deceased's income should be considered as dependency amount. - The court observed that the traditional approach of earmarking 1/3rd of the income for the family is not applicable in cases where the deceased has a wife, two sons, and a daughter. - The court further observed that the social and economic realities of the present time require a higher dependency amount to ensure the proper maintenance of the family. 3. Span of Life: - The court held that the span of life of 65 years considered by the Tribunal was reasonable and should not be disturbed. - The court observed that the life expectancy in India has increased significantly in recent years and that 65 years is a fair estimate of the deceased's life expectancy. 4. Lump Sum Payment: - The court held that there should be a deduction of 15% in compensation on account of lump sum payment. - The court observed that a deduction is necessary to account for the uncertainties of life and the immediate payment of compensation. - However, the court also observed that a deduction of 20%, as suggested by the Supreme Court in Jyotsna Dey v. State of Assam, is too high and would result in a significant reduction in compensation. 5. Apportionment of Compensation: - The court held that the apportionment of compensation made by the Tribunal was inadequate and should be revised. - The court observed that the marriageable age of girls in the present time is generally considered to be above 21 years and that education and marriage expenses should be taken into consideration. - The court further observed that the amount awarded to the children was meager and did not provide for their proper education and upbringing.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 1,30,000/- to Rs. 3,28,000/-. The court also directed that the compensation be apportioned among the claimants in a more equitable manner.

JUDGMENT

1. - This appeal is directed against the order/award dated 6.4.1990 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dausa, being aggrieved on the ground that the compensation awarded to the claimants-appellants is very less.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 8.12.1983 respondent No. 1 was driving tanker URT 531. The tanker hit the camel-cart and thereafter it struck to the coming truck No. RJR 5167. Deceased Shankar Singh, driver of the truck No. RJR 5167, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Claimants-appellants are the wife, sons and daughter of deceased Shankar Singh. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that Shankar Singh deceased sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the tanker. Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that Shankar Singh was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month as salary at the time of sad demise. Tribunal also came to the conclusion that Shankar Singh might have spent Rs. 400/- per month towards his family members. Tribunal after considering the evidence awarded Rs. 1,30,000/- in all to Vimla Devi, wife, Rs. 7,200/- to Bahadur Singh and Rs. 8,400/- to Lal Singh and Rs. 9,600/- to Kumari Chitra. The Tribunal was also of the view that the claimants (Sic. deceased) might have lived up to the age of 65 years in the normal course. Thus, the multiplier was taken as 40 years and it was considered that the petitioner might have been maintained for only 40 years more. As far as the question of multiplier of the children is concerned, for Bahadur Singh the multiplier has been taken as 12 years and for Lal Singh the multiplier has been taken as 14 years and for Kumari Chitra multiplier has been taken as 16 years. It was considered by the learned Tribunal that the children might have received the dependency expenses only upto the age of 18 years and so the multiplier was 18 minus the existing age.

3. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Mr. Bhartiya, the learned counsel for the appellant, cited before me the case of Teeja v. Ram Ratan 1986 ACJ 125 (Rajasthan) . This court held that there should not be deduction on account of lump sum payment. The general trend of increasing prices and inflation was considered.

4. Mr. Bhartiya has also cited before me the case of Makbool Ahmed v. Bhura Lal 1986 ACJ 219 (Rajasthan). My brother Vyas, J., was considering the question of remarriage and held that the compensation should be paid only upto the date of remarriage and for the parents the multiplier was considered as 15 years. This case does not help Mr. Bhartiya in the facts and circumstances of the case in any way. However, I will like to observe that the Constitution of India guarantees equal treatment and particularly Article 15 of the Constitution read with preamble of the Constitution. Chapter IV of the Constitution directs the court and the Government to provide equality of opportunity, equality of status and to give special facilities and concession to the weaker class of the society, namely, the women. The days when the widow remarriage was prohibited have gone and after coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act and Hindu Succession Act, the doctrine of limited case also lost its ground. Widow has a right to remarry and it is in the interest of the society that remarriage of the young lady should be encouraged and the court should not be an impediment because of the old traditional approach, where the power vested in the man and the females were considered as the second class members. For this purpose, Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 also provides the right of absolute ownership to a woman and I am of the view that to say that on account of the remarriage or possibility of remarriage deduction of compensation will be against the spirit of the Constitution and will put a check on the remarriage system provided under various legislations enacted by the Parliament and the State Assembly. I am in disagreement on this point that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1991 Supreme(Raj) 847

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHD.L.Mehta, J.Vimla Devi And Ors. - AppellantVersusChaman And Ors. - RespondentS.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 370 of 1990.Decided On : 18-09-1991

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
D.L.Mehta, J.
Vimla Devi And Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Chaman And Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 370 of 1990.
Decided On : 18-09-1991