Geeta Devi vs Moonim

Alok Sharma, J.—Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded under the order dated 04.10.2004, passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur working as Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, this civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants (hereinafter "the claimants") whereby in respect of a claim petition at the instance of the claimants compensation of Rs. 8,72,800/- in the aggregate along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of award till the date of payment has been awarded.

The claim petition contends that the deceased Radheshyam aged 40 years was admittedly engaged as a helper with the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam on substantive basis and as per Ex-12 his salary was Rs. 7,463/- p.m. at the time of death in an accident of 19.06.2002. The contention in the petition is that while determining the compensation, the learned MACT has failed to consider the future prospects of the deceased Radheshyam who was holding a permanent job on substantive basis as a helper with the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where a person is less then 40 years and in regular employment, future prospects as 50% of his salary at the time of his death should be reckoned for the purpose of determination of compensation. It is prayed that the compensation determined by the court below in its order dated 04.10.2004 is therefore liable to be accordingly enhanced/modified.

Mr. V.D. Ghatala, appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company, on the issue of future prospects has very fairly conceded that in terms of the obtaining state of law where a person is in a regular employment his future prospects have to be taken into consideration and reckoned for the purpose of the determination of just and fair compensation.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 04.10.2004, passed by the MACT.

In my considered opinion, the learned MACT while determining the compensation has overlooked the important aspect of reckoning of future prospects of the deceased Radheshyam working as helper on a substantive basis with the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam a Government of Rajasthan company at the time of his death. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, has held as under:

The standardization of addition to income for future prospects shall help in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases.

In view of the above enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the compensation to which the claimants were entitled would need to be redetermined by this Court. Admittedly the deceased Radheshyam an employee in a Government of Rajasthan Company on substantive basis was earning a salary of Rs. 7,463/- p.m. (Ex-12) at the time of his death. Rounding off the same to Rs. 7,500/- p.m. and applying the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Reshma Kumari (Supra) the salary of the deceased Radheshyam for the purpose of determination of compensation to the claimants ought to have taken as Rs. 11,250/- p.m. At 2/3rd dependency of the claimants, the amount to be reckoned for the purpose of applying the appropriate multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased would thus be Rs. 7,500/-. The age of the deceased Radheshyam was 40 years at the time of his death. In this circumstance, a multiplier of 14 would be applicable. By a simple mathematical calculation, the loss of dependency to which the claimants was therefore entitled for the death of Radheshyam in the road accident of 19.06.2002 by an offending vehicle insured with the Insurance Company would be Rs. 12,60,000/- (7,500/- X 12 X 14 = Rs. 12,60,000). The learned court below has wrongly determined the loss of dependency at Rs. 8,72,800/-. The said amount would be accordingly stand modified. The claim for loss of dependency would stand enhanced by Rs. 3,87,200/-(Rs. 12,60,000 - Rs. 8,72,800/-).

I further find that the learned MACT has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the claimant No. 1, Geeta Devi (wife of the deceased) and Rs. 25,000/- to the claimants Nos. 2 to 6 being deprived of the deceased Radheshyam. The claimant No. 1 Geeta Devi loosing her husband, claimant Nos. 2 to 4 loosing their father and claimant Nos. 5 & 6 loosing their son would no doubt have been traumatised badly. In my considered opinion, the compensation under this head is liable to be enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- for claimant No. 1 and from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- for claimant Nos. 2 to 6. The other heads of award of compensation by the MACT would stand as determined by it.

Consequently, the appeal is accordingly allowed. It is directed that the claimants would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 3,87,200/- towards loss of dependency and a further sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 25,000/-) under the head of love and affection. The enhanced compensation would thus aggregate to Rs. 4,27,200/-. This enhanced compensation (over and above Rs. 8,72,800/- plus 6% p.a. interest) would carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of award till the date of payment.