Saroj vs Hazarilal

Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J.—The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of the impugned award dated 27th January, 2009 passed by the MACT (Fast Track), Kotputli, District, Jaipur in claim case No. 704/2008, whereby the claimant-appellants have been awarded compensation of Rs. 4,40,000. The brief facts emerging from the face of the record are that a claim petition was filed before the Tribunal under Sections 166/140 of the M.V. Act on 26th June, 2006 against the driver of the truck Hazari Lal (non-claimant No. 1), the owner of the truck Sureshchand (non-claimant No. 2), and the Insurance Company. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (non-claimant No. 3) praying therein to pay the claimants an amount of Rs. 68,45,000 as compensation on account of road accident, which took place on 29th April, 2006, at about 1 p.m., when deceased Girdharilal was standing at the Kotputli inter-section in order to cross the road at that time a truck bearing No. HRJ-55J-0047 coming from Jaipur, and was being driven in rash and negligent manner by driver Ram Sharan, firstly hit a camel-cart and thereafter crushed Girdharilal, as a result of which Girdharilal died on the spot and driver of camel-cart also sustained injuries. It was further alleged that the same vehicle in question also further hit two more persons. An FIR has also been lodged against the driver of the truck for causing the accident while driving rashly and negligently and a challan was also submitted before the concerned Court against the driver of the vehicle in question.

The Tribunal issued summons to the non-petitioners. The non-petitioner No. 3 filed their reply in which denied almost all the averments made in the claim petition. It was pleaded by the Insurance Company that the insurer has not informed the Insurance Company about the accident, therefore, violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and prayed to dismiss the claim.

However, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as 4 issues including the issue of relief.

In support of their claim, the claimants examined A.D.1 Saroj and A.D.2 Ram Sharan and got exhibited number of documents. The non-petitioners did not adduce any evidence in defence.

After hearing both the parties and considering material available on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned award granting total compensation of Rs. 4,40,000 on all counts. Hence, this appeal.

Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has not allowed just and fair compensation, which was required to be allowed. He contended that the Tribunal has not computed income/salary in correct prospective and when claim was for Rs. 6000 per month as the deceased was running a hotel of his own. He submitted that there is no justification in adopting income at Rs. 3,000 per month. He further contended that the deceased was a young man of just 24 years of age and died at such young age leaving behind a large family and dependents and on account of this unfortunate death the dependents including minor children have been rendered pathetic as the only bread earner died on account of this accident, He further contended that future prospect was also required to be allowed. He also contended that the dependents are in all six members including wife, therefore, deduction has wrongly been allowed at 1/3rd, which should have been at 1/4th. He further contended that the loss on account of consortium and loss on account of love and affection has been allowed at just Rs. 5,000 each and only an amount of Rs. 2,000 by way of funeral expenses was allowed. He submitted that just and fair compensation is required to be allowed under the M.V. Act and he relied upon the judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, and Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and other judgments on the issue.

Per contra, Mr. Lokesh Atery, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the incident was of the year 2006 and Tribunal after considering each and every issue has allowed just and fair compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,40,000 to the claimants, which is not required to be interfered with by this Court as there was no evidence of proving the income of the deceased nor any further evidence was placed on record and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. He relied on judgments rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, as also the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another,

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and in my view when it is an admitted fact that the deceased died on account of the said accident and was just of age of 24 years and had he not died this unnatural death on account of this unfortunate accident, certainly would have lived long and would have certainly helped not only his wife but also the family members including minor children who as claimed aged 1 to 5 years including the widowed mother. In my view, the Tribunal has come to a fair conclusion but the claim deserves to be enhanced for the reasons referred to hereinafter.

With reference to future prospects, while the Counsel for the appellant relied upon judgments rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, , as also judgment in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, , the Counsel for the Insurance Company relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, as also the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, This Court in the case of Jagdish and Ors. v. Abdul Habib and Ors., (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3690/2008) decided on 4th March, 2014 has considered this issue at length after considering the judgments rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (supra),Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. (supra), Reshma Kumari and Others v. Madan Mohan and Anr. (supra), Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (supra) as also the latest judgments of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, G. Dhanasekar Vs. M.D., Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., : (Civil Appeal Nos. 2008-09/2P14 arising out of SLP Nos. 35565-35566 decided on 12th February, 2014, Syed Sadiq etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company, and also earlier judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of RSRTC Vs. Pusha Ram and Others, , Savita Sharma Vs. Kailash Chand, and this Court in the case of Sona and Ors. v. Ajit Mohammad and Ors., (CMA No. 3120/2009) decided on 18th September, 2013. In my view, considering the above authorities, the future prospects is to be allowed both in case of a person who had permanency in employment may be Government or otherwise so also to be allowed in a case of self employed person with having sufficient stability and steadiness in source of income and can be allowed in the case, where a person may be earning on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis as they also increase their income/charges after sometime as the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up. The Government also increases wages as also other emoluments on periodical basis based on the index, accordingly it would be appropriate to allow future prospects as it can be said that there was steady income.

Now, scrutinizing the facts of the instant case in the light of above proposition, it emerges that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 per month by running a hotel on the highway and his income would have been increased over the years and can be said to be steady income. Therefore, in the light of above facts and the judgments referred to supra, the future prospects is directed to be awarded. Since the deceased was aged about 24 years, therefore, he would be entitled to increase of 50% of the income. The deduction should have been calculated at 1/4th as against 1/3rd allowed by the Tribunal as the dependents are more than 4. The multiplier of 18 is fair and reasonable Smt. Sarla Verma''s (supra). On account of loss of consortium, I deem it appropriate to allow an amount of Rs. 25,000 and on account of loss of love and affection towards the children at Rs. 25,000. The funeral expenses is considered to be appropriate at Rs. 5000 instead of Rs. 2000. Accordingly, calculation is as under:

Accordingly, the total amount of Rs. 3,44,000 as aforesaid is additionally computed/allowable/enhanced in the present appeal. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order/award dated 27th January, 2009 is modified to the extent that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 3,44,000 with interest @ 6% will be paid by the non-petitioners. The interest will however be allowed from the date of the award by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to deposit Rs. 1,50,000 along with interest so computed rounded off to the nearest thousands in the name of Smt. Saroj wife of the deceased in the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) in the nearest Post Office for a period of five years. Amount of Rs. 20,000 each with interest so computed will be deposited in the name of Mahendra, Monu and Rahul minor sons of the deceased in the MIS for a period of five years jointly in the name of minors and mother Smt. Saroj. An amount of Rs. 40,000 with interest so computed will be deposited in the name of daughter of the deceased namely Sonu in the MIS for a period of five years jointly in the name of minor daughter and mother Smt. Saroj. Balance amount of Rs. 94,000 will be deposited in the name of mother Smt. Patashi W/o Sadhuram in the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) with Post Office. The balance will be deposited in the saving accounts with the same Post Office where the monthly interest on the aforesaid MIS will be credited to the respective accounts and all the recipients will be allowed to withdraw interest component on the credited amount of MIS on monthly basis and full amount on its maturity. However it is made clear that none of the recipients will be allowed to take loan or pledge the same with the Post Office or raise loan on the said MIS. The above exercise is required to be completed within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.