Lalita And Others vs Rajesh Kumar And Others

Birendra Kumar, J

Heard the parties.

Appellants are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation decided by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur in Claim Case No.50/2000 by judgment and award dated 14.05.2003, hence, this appeal for enhancement of the award. The Tribunal had made award of Rs.2,18,500/- against the claim of Rs.14,44,000/-.

Undisputed facts of this case is that deceased Vijay @ Bablu on his own cycle and his friends on their respective cycles were returning to their house after darshan of temple. A rash and negligent Tata Sumo bearing registration No.RJ-14-2-C-7692 caused accident and death of Bablu. At the time of death, Bablu was aged about 22 years. He was taking training of ITI and side by side was engaged in selling vegetables and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The deceased was unmarried. Initially, his father Kastoor Chand alongwith with his wife had filed the claim case as well as this appeal and after death of Kastoor Chand, his wife Lalita and another son Sanjay Solanki were brought on the record.

It is worth to mention that Lalita was already a party alongwith Kastoor Chand and Sanjay Solanki, the brother of the deceased was not a dependent on the deceased rather, was a dependent on his parents, therefore, Sanjay Solanki is not entitled for any amount of compensation for death of Vijay @ Bablu.

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the ocular evidence is that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The two business employer of the deceased were examined and they stated that they were paying Rs.1,500/- per month to the deceased for his services in selling the vegetables. The learned Tribunal in absence of any contrary evidence on the record rather, on conjectures and surmises, disbelieved the testimony of the witnesses on the ground that it is highly unbelievable that the deceased was working with two separate employers. Learned counsel contends that it is not totally impracticable rather, poor people work in the morning shift as well as in the evening shift for getting two times food.

Learned counsel next contends that the Tribunal has not awarded anything for future prospects of the deceased, which should be 40% as held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

Likewise, lesser amount has been awarded for loss of consortium, which should be Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal has wrongly adopted the multiplier of 15, which should be 18, considering the age of the deceased.

Likewise, Rs.30,000/- should be payable for funeral expenses and loss to the estate jointly.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. contends that the Tribunal has correctly adopted the income of the deceased, which was income of a daily wager. The Tribunal was justified, in absence of any evidence of income of the deceased, to take Rs.1,500/- as income of the deceased. However, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses, which should have been 50%, as the deceased was a bachelor.

In absence of contrary evidence on the record, there was no reason to disbelieve the claim of the appellants regarding income of the deceased. Moreover, the claim of income is not very excessive and exorbitant one, therefore, the income of the deceased should have been accepted as Rs.3,000/- per month. Out of that, 50% was deductible for personal expenses of the deceased and after deduction, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.1,500/- per month. This amount is multiplied with 12 to get yearly loss and further with multiplier of 18, considering the age of the deceased. The amount comes to Rs.3,24,000/-. 40% of the same for future prospects would be Rs.1,29,600/-. Rs.40,000/- is payable to the mother for loss of consortium and Rs.30,000/- for funeral expenses and loss to the estate. The total payable amount is calculated as Rs.5,23,600/-.

The respondent-Oriental Insurance Company Limited is directed to make payment of the aforesaid amount minus already paid amount alongwith interest @ 7% per annum within two months, failing which, interest @ 9% would be payable.

With the aforesaid modification in the compensation, the instant appeal stands allowed.