Back
2010 Supreme(Raj) 487
2012(1) CCR 73 (Raj.)
(Rajasthan High Court)
Saraswati Devi (Smt.) Vs. Devendra Singh & Ors. (Sapre, J.)
HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J.
Saraswati Devi (Smt.)
Versus
Devendra Singh & Ors.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.670 of 1997, decided on 29.04.2010
Subject
Motor Vehicle Accident - Compensation
Act Referred
Headnote
W¼d½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 168 ,oa 173 & okgu nq?kZVuk esa 16-18 o"khZ; 10 oha d{kk ds fo|kFkhZ dh e`R;q & izfrdj & vf/kdj.k us 60]000@- #i;s vf/kfuf.kZr fd;s & vfHko`f) gsrq vihy & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & izfrdj fu/kkZfjr djus gsrq fuf'pr vkSj dksbZ fLFkj lw= micaf/kr ugha fd;k x;k gS & izfrdj izLrqr dh xbZ lk{; ,oa lqlaxr igyqvksa ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS & bl izdkj ds ekeyksa esa mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s fof/k dks fopkj esa ysrs gq, nkosnkjx.k U;k; laxr izfrdj ds :i esa 2]00]000@- izkIr djus ds gdnkj gS& vf/kfu.kZ; mikUrfjr fd;kA
¼in la[;k 7] 9 ,oa 11½
(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Secs. 168 & 173 — Vehicular accident — Injuries to 37 years house wife — Compensation — Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,44,000/- — Appeal for enhancement — Held — Compensation awarded to the claimant is just, proper and reasonable but looking to her facial disfigurement, lump sum compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,44,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- — Award modified. (Paras 19 & 21)
¼[k½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 168 ,oa 173 & okgu nq?kZVuk & 37 o"khZ; ?kjsyq efgyk dks pksVsa & izfrdj & vf/kdj.k us 1]44]000@- #i;s vf/kfuf.kZr fd;s & vfHko`f) gsrq vihy & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & nkosnkj dks vf/kfuf.kZr izfrdj U;k; laxr] mfpr ,oa ;qfDr;qDr gS ysfdu mldh psgjs dh fod`fr dks ns[krs gq, ,d eq'r izfrdj 1]44]000@- #i;s ls 1]50]000@- #i;s rd vfHko`f) fd;k & vf/kfu.kZ; mikUrfjr fd;kA ¼in la[;k 19 ,oa 21½
(c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Secs. 168 & 173 — Vehicular accident — Death of 45-50 years Businessman — Compensation — Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,00,000/- deducting 1/3 for personal expenses and applying multiplier of 8 — Appeal for enhancement — Held — Tribunal rightly determined yearly income on the basis of income tax return — Multiplier of 13 should have been applied as per Schedule in place of `8' as age of deceased was between 45-50 years — Dependency amount comes to Rs. (85,000 x 13) = 11,05,000/- — Lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded under the conventional head — Appellants are entitled to get Rs. 11,30,000/- as total compensation — Award modified. (Paras 27 to 29)
¼x½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 168 ,oa 173 & okgu nq?kZVuk & 45-50 o"khZ; O;olk;h dh e`R;q & izfrdj & vf/kdj.k us O;fDrxr [kpZ gsrq 1@3 dVkSrh djrs gq, ,oa 8 dk xq.kd iz;qDr djrs gq, 7]00]000@- #i;s vf/kfuf.kZr fd;s & vfHko`f) gsrq vihy & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vf/kdj.k us vk; dj fooj.kh ds vk/kkj ij okf"kZd vk; lgh fu/kkZfjr dh & vuqlwph ds vuqlkj 8 ds LFkku ij 13 dk xq.kd iz;qDr fd;k tkuk pkfg;s D;ksafd e`rd dh vk;q 45-50 o"kZ ds chp Fkh & vkfJrk jkf'k ¼85]000 x 13½ = 11]05]000@- #i;s vkrh gS & 25]000@- #i;s dh ,d eq'r jkf'k ijaijkxr 'kh"kZd ds vUrxZr vf/kfuf.kZr fd;k & bl izdkj] vihykFkhZx.k dqy izfrdj ds :i esa 11]30]000@- #i;s izkIr djus ds gdnkj gS & vf/kfu.kZ; mikUrfjr fd;kA ¼in la[;k 27 ls 29½
vihysa vkaf'kd Lohdkj dhA
Arvind Samdaria on behalf of K.C. Samdaria, for Appellant;
R.K. Mehta, for Respondents
1. This is a misc. appeal filed by claimant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short called "the Act") against an award dated 23.6.1997 passed by MACT, Chittorgarh in Claim Case No.105/88.
2. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.60,000/- with interest to the claimant for the death of one Manoj, who died in vehicular accident. According to claimant, the compensation awarded is on a lower side and hence, it needs to be enhanced. It is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is, whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts / evidence is made out and if so, to what extent ?
3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of claimant by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants' favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as, owner / driver, or insurance company either by way of cross appeal or cross objection. In this view of the matter, I do not wish to burden my judgment by detailing facts on all these issues.
4. Facts of the case are these.
5. It is a death case. On 02.07.1987, at about 11.00 AM deceased Manoj along with his father and other family members were coming from Maharashtra to Bhilwara by a Car bearing No. MXB-4062, which was being driven by his father. As soon as they reached near village Jhjoron-ki-Khere, suddenly a Truck bearing No. MWU-3207 dashed the car by plying it rashly and negligently by its driver, as a result of which, the persons sitting in the car, namely, Bhanwarlal Jain and his son Manoj Kumar died on the spot. However, the other persons who were sitting in the car, namely, Smt. Saraswati Devi, Vinod Kumar, Malti and his servant Ramu sustained injuries. It is this incident which gave rise to filing of a claim petition by his mother claiming compensation for his unfortunate death. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company. Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs.60,000/- towards full payment of compensation for his death. It is this award which is sought to be challenged by the claimants on the ground that it is on a lower side and therefore, it should be enhanced.
6. I have gone through the evidence. Having gone through the same, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part to the extent indicated infra.
7. Coming now to the issue of quantum of compensation, I have taken note of the judicial precedents on the issue of award of compensation in child death cases, reported in 2001 ACJ 160 wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court while allowing the appeal filed by the New India Insurance Company awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- for the death of a child aged 9 years and like wise in a case reported in 2009 ACJ 99 (Manju Devi vs. Musafir) their Lordships of Supreme Court again in a death case of child aged 13 years awarded Rs.2,25,000/-. I have examined the evidence of the present case keeping in view the law laid down in these 2 decisions, so also the approach of their Lordships in dealing with child death cases. The boy i.e. Manoj aged 16-18 years, a student of class 10th was a hale and hearty one. Taking into consideration all these factors, coupled with award of statutory conventional compensation, and applying the multiplier as provided under
