Court re-assessed compensation based on minimum wage standards and future prospects for a deceased housewife, enhancing the total award to Rs. 9,95,100/.

JUDGMENT :

PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, J.

1. The instant civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) praying enhancement in the award dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in claim case No. 966/2014 titled as Shankar Lal Soni and ors. vs. Prahlad Gurjar and ors. whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,05,000/- in favour of appellants-claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Smt. Kaushlya Devi.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 01.10.2014 deceased Smt. Kaushlya Devi was walking with her husband on Road No.9 VKIA near Carnation Auto, Vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-GC-4272 came from backside in fast speed in rash and negligent manner and hit Smt. Kaushlya Devi who sustained grievous injuries and during the course of treatment died, hence claim petition was filed before the Tribunal.

3. Notices were served to the respondents. Respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner remained ex parte. Respondent No.3- Insurance Company of the offending vehicle appeared and filed the written statement disputing all the averments made in the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal has framed four issues for consideration. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined AW-1 Shankar Lal Soni and produced documentary evidence Ex.1 to Ex.14. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the respondents.

5. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimants, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,05,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 21.03.2016, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants.

7. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that though deceased was a housewife but from embroidery work she was getting Rs. 15,000/- per month. That fact was not controverted by the Insurance Company by leading any evidence, therefore, the learned Tribunal in absence of any counter evidence assessed a meager amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month as income of the deceased. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has also erred in not granting future prospects as per the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Under conventional heads also, the learned Tribunal has not followed the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, therefore, the appellants-claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that the appellants are not entitled for enhancement in compensation since the learned Tribunal after considering all the factual aspects of the matter awarded a just and reasonable compensation.

10. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

11. The manner in which the accident occurred is not disputed. This appeal has been filed only questioning quantum of compensation, hence there is no need for any discussion on the question of negligence.

12. The age and multiplier as determined by the learned Tribunal is also unquestioned.

13. The learned Tribunal after elaborately discussing the factual aspects awarded a sum of Rs. 5,20,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 25,000/- for spousal consortium, Rs. 50,000/- for parental consortium and Rs. 10,000/- as funeral expenses and arrived at a total compensation of Rs. 6,05,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation.

14. The Tribunal ought to have followed the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in:-

(i) (2017) 16 SCC 680 , National Insurance Company Limit