2014 Supreme(Raj) 1005
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Nisha Gupta, J.
Jarino Bano & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Dharmendra Kumar Saini & Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 953 of 2010.
Decided On : 20-02-2014
Advocates:
For the Appellant:Ram Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Ali Mohd. Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Vigyan Shah, Advocate.
THE PRINCIPLES FOR CALCULATING COMPENSATION IN MOTOR ACCIDENT CASES, INCLUDING INCOME ASSESSMENT, MULTIPLIER APPLICATION, AND FUTURE PROSPECTS.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 173 - COMPENSATION - ENHANCEMENT - CLAIMANTS APPEALING FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AWARDED BY MACT - COURT DISCUSSES PRINCIPLES FOR CALCULATING COMPENSATION, INCLUDING INCOME ASSESSMENT, MULTIPLIER APPLICATION, AND FUTURE PROSPECTS.
Fact of the Case:
CLAIMANTS APPEALED FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AWARDED BY MACT FOR THE DEATH OF HAIDER ALI IN A ROAD ACCIDENT. THE DECEASED WAS 20 YEARS OLD AND WAS EARNING RS. 3,000/- PER MONTH AS AN ELECTRIC WELDER. THE MACT APPLIED A MULTIPLIER OF 15 BASED ON THE AGE OF THE DEPENDENTS (FATHER AND MOTHER) AND AWARDED COMPENSATION ACCORDINGLY.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT HELD THAT THE MACT HAD RIGHTLY CALCULATED THE INCOME OF THE DECEASED BASED ON MINIMUM WAGES AND APPLIED THE MULTIPLIER BASED ON THE AGE OF THE DEPENDENTS. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM FOR FUTURE PROSPECTS AND THAT THE AMOUNT AWARDED FOR FUNERAL EXPENSES AND LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION WAS REASONABLE.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE MACT ERRED IN CALCULATING THE INCOME OF THE DECEASED? 2. WHETHER THE MACT ERRED IN APPLYING THE MULTIPLIER BASED ON THE AGE OF THE DEPENDENTS? 3. WHETHER THE MACT ERRED IN NOT AWARDING COMPENSATION FOR FUTURE PROSPECTS? 4. WHETHER THE MACT ERRED IN AWARDING A MEAGER AMOUNT FOR FUNERAL EXPENSES AND LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. THE COURT HELD THAT THE MACT HAD RIGHTLY CALCULATED THE INCOME OF THE DECEASED BASED ON MINIMUM WAGES, AS THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF HIGHER INCOME. 2. THE COURT HELD THAT THE MACT HAD RIGHTLY APPLIED THE MULTIPLIER BASED ON THE AGE OF THE DEPENDENTS, AS THE AGE OF THE DEPENDENTS HAS A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION. 3. THE COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM FOR FUTURE PROSPECTS, AS THE DECEASED WAS NOT IN A PERMANENT JOB AND HAD NO BRIGHT FUTURE PROSPECTS. 4. THE COURT HELD THAT THE AMOUNT AWARDED FOR FUNERAL EXPENSES AND LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION WAS REASONABLE, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE DECEASED WAS A RESIDENT OF A SMALL VILLAGE.
Final Decision: THE COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL, HOLDING THAT THE MACT HAD RIGHTLY AWARDED A FAIR AND REASONABLE COMPENSATION.
JUDGMENT
1. - This Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment /award dated 4.2.2010 passed by Judge, MACT, (Fast Track), Kotputli Distt. Jaipur in Claim Case No. 189/2008 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the award.
2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that claimants -appellants filed a claim petition due to death of Haider Ali in the road accident on 29.3.2008 when he was crossing the National Highway No. 8 near Dhani Gaskan, a trolla being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit him and he died on the spot. Claim petition has been filed and the Tribunal has not awarded reasonable and fair compensation to the claimants. Hence, this appeal.
3. The contention of the appellants are that income of the deceased has not been calculated rightly, wrong multiplier has been applied. Now it is settled proposition laid down by the Apex Court that as per age of the deceased, the multiplier should be adopted, for love and affection and funeral expenses, a meager amount has been awarded, the deceased was of the age of 20 years inspite of this, no future prospects have been calculated, hence, the award should be enhanced properly.Per contra the contention of the respondents is that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. The income has rightly been assessed on the scale of minimum wages. No documentary evidence has been produced to prove the income. Father and mother are the dependents and while calculating their expectancy of life, multiplier has rightly been applied and for love and affection, a reasonable amount has been awarded. Deceased was not in permanent job and hence there was no question for calculating future prospects.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as original record of the case.
5. It has been asserted by the claimants that deceased was doing the work of electric welding and earning Rs. 7,500/- per month but no documentary evidence has been produced for the same. Hence, the court below has rightly calculated the income as Rs. 3,000/- per month on the guideline of minimum wages prevalent at the time of his death. The appellants has relied upon Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza & ors. v. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, MACD 2013 (SC) 356 and Radhakrishna & Anr. v. Gokul & ors., MACD 2013 (SC) 364 , where on the facts of the particular case, compensation has been calculated.
6. The other contention of the claimants is that the multiplier should be applied on the basis of the age of the deceased. Reliance has been placed on Amrit Bhanu Shali & ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors., 2012 R.A.R. 138 (SC) and it has been further followed in M. Mansoor & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., MACD 2013 (SC) 375 wherein it has been held that the multiplier is to be applied on the basis of the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependents and reason has been given that there may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of the compensation and the contention of the appellants on the basis of law laid down above is that on the age of the deceased i.e. 20 years, a higher multiplier should be applied.Per contra, the respondents have relied upon It is the earlier law Sarla Verma (Smt.) & ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 . laid down by the Apex Court that the multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalized. On the above proposition, selection of multiplier could only be the age of the parents on the basis of the fact that only till their life-time, it can be said that they have purchased the number of such years and court below has not committed any illegality in applying the multiplier having regard to the age of the dependents who are father and mother and apart from it, in
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
