AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dinesh Mehta, J
(IA No. 1/2022)
For the reasons stated and considering that the basic issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the application seeking early hearing is allowed and the matter is taken up for consideration today itself.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5225/2011
While challenging the judgment and award dated 04.08.2011 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, Mr. Modi, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the tribunal has erred in not considering the amount of House Rent Allowance while calculating the amount of compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issue that house rent allowance is to be included in the amount of compensation is no more res-integra in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sunil Sharma and Others vs. Bachitar Singh and Others reported in (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 425.
In light of the judgment aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that amount of Rs. 2,721/- per month availed by the deceased as house rent allowance is required to be included in the amount of compensation and the impugned judgment and award of the tribunal deserves to be modified accordingly.
Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company opposed the appellants’ prayer and argued that the amount of house rent allowance cannot be included in the compensation amount.
Heard rival counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Rs. 48,461/-
Rs. 48,461/- - 1/3th = Rs. 16,153.67
Rs. 32,307.33
On perusal of the award impugned, this Court finds that the appellants – legal representatives of the deceased have placed on record the salary certificate (Ex.15), which showed that the deceased – Komalchand Bhulawat was being confessed the house rent allowance of Rs. 2,721/- per month.
In light of the established fact and considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sunil Sharma (supra), this Court is inclined to allow the appeal partly in relation to HRA. The appellants are also entitled for future prospects in light of the judgment of Pranay Sethi.
Considering the aforesaid, the judgment and award is modified as under :-
For future prospect
30% of Rs. 37,278/- (Income of deceased)
Rs. 11,183/-
Rs. 37,278/- + Rs. 11,183/-
Rs. 48,461/-
Amount to be deducted as spent on himself
Rs. 48,461/- - 1/3th = Rs. 16,153.67
Dependence Amount (Rs. 48,461/- - Rs. 16,153.67)
Rs. 32,307.33
The age of deceased was 47 years at the time of accident, therefore, a multiplier of 13 will be applied.
(I)
Compensation due to death
Rs.32,307.33 x 12 x 13
Rs. 50,39,944/-
(II)
For the Loss of Estate
Rs. 15,000/-
(III)
For Funeral Expenses
Rs. 15,000/-
(III)
(IV)
IV)
For the loss of consortium
Medical Bills
Misc. Expenses
Rs. 40,000/-
Rs. 51,713/-
Rs. 13,596/-
Total
Rs. 51,75,253/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal vide award dated 04.08.2011
Rs. 36,70,000/-
Enhanced amount
15,05,253/-
The enhanced amount of Rs. 15,05,253/- shall carry out interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 10.11.2009.
The appeal is allowed partly in the aforesaid terms.