Nawalgarh Road, Sikar, Tehsil and District Sikar v. Station Padampur, District Sriganganagar

Order

1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 01.11.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track), Sikar (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Sikar in MAC No.596/2011, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was partly allowed and awarded the compensation of Rs.3,09,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. [2025:RJ-JP:27569] (2 of 6) [CMA-537/2013]

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

26.01.2009, the son of the claimants/appellants was going in a jeep bearing registration No. RJ-23-P-0765 along with others, suddenly a bus, bearing registration No. RJ-13-PA-1812 coming from opposite direction being driven by non-claimant/respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner collided with the jeep due to which son of the claimants/appellants- Sunil died on the spot, therefore, the claim petition was filed by the claimants/appellants for awarding just compensation.

3. It was stated in the claim petition that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 25 years and was doing the work of transportation and agriculture, thus, was earning about Rs.21,000/- per month, therefore, prayed for awarding just compensation.

4. After receiving notice to the claim petition, the non- claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the jeep driver and not because of the bus. It was also submitted that since the bus is duly insured with the non-claimant/respondent No.4- Insurance Company, therefore, if any liability is found due, the same may be fasten upon the Insurance Company and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. The non-claimant/respondent No.4- Insurance Company also filed reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess a valid and effective license, which is a [2025:RJ-JP:27569] (3 of 6) [CMA-537/2013] violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, therefore, the Insurance Company may not liable to pay any compensation. It was further submitted that the owner, driver and Insurance Company of the jeep are necessary parties, therefore, the claim petition may be dismissed on the grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties. It was further pleaded that in view of nature of the accident, aspect of contrary negligence may also be considered and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed five (5) issues.

7. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimants examined AW-1 Manohar Lal, AW-2 Smt. Kamla Devi, AW-3 Birbal, AW-4 Santosh Devi, AW-5 Kurdaram, AW-6 Mahaveer, AW-7 Mukesh Punia, AW-8 Sanwarmal and AW-9 Nemichand and produced documents Ex.1 to Ex.42.

8. In rebuttal, the non-claimant/respondents examined NAW-1 Rupendra Singh and produced documents Ex. NA-1 to NA-2.

9. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and after considering the age of the parents of the deceased while applying the multiplier of 11, monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.150/- per month, awarded a compensation of Rs.3,09,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum.

10. Being aggrieved of which, the claimants/appellants have preferred the present appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the learned Tribunal awarded inadequate amount. He further [2025:RJ-JP:27569] (4 of 6) [CMA-537/2013] submits that the learned Tribunal seriously erred by applying an incorrect multiplier of 11 while considering the age of the parents of the deceased whereas as per the facts and circumstances of the case, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied while taking note of age of the deceased- Sunil. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has not considered future prospects and also awarded a meagre amount under the conventional heads, therefore, the impugned award may kindly be suitably modified.

12. Per contra, Mr. Vijay Punia, learned counsel for the non- claimant/respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Manish Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Nalin G. Narain, Advocate for the non-claimant/respondent No.4- Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimants/appellants and submits that the impugned award is based on a correct appreciation of facts and law and does not call for any interference. It is also submitted that the award does not suffer from any legal infirmity and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the present appeal.

13. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

14. From bare perusal of the record of the case, it is revealed that the deceased- Sunil lost his life in an accident which took place on 26.01.2009 and at the time of accident, age of the deceased was more than 25 years and the learned Tribunal has considered monthly income of the deceased- Sunil to be Rs.4,500/- per month as no conclusive proof of income of the deceased was submitted by the claimants/appellants. [2025:RJ-JP:27569] (5 of 6) [CMA-537/2013]

15. A bare perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11 while taking into consideration the age of the parents of the deceased whereas the law is well-settled now that in such a cases, multiplier should be applied after considering the age of the deceased and not of the parents and according to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, if we considered the age of the deceased- Sunil to be more than 25 years as per the facts and circumstances of the case, multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied.

16. From bare perusal of the impugned award, it is reflected that future prospects has not been considered by the learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation. If the facts and circumstances of the case are analyzed in the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the impugned award is required to be enhanced to some extent.

17. Accordingly, after taking wholesome consideration of above facts, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under the impugned award is required to be enhanced to some extent and same is enhanced as per the table made hereinunder:- Loss of Income (+) Deduction (Personal Expenses 1/2) (-) Rs.4,500/-x12x17 = Rs.9,18,000/- (-)Rs.4,59,000/- Future Prospects 40% (+) Rs.1,83,600/- Loss of Love, Affection and consortium (Rs.40,000/-x1)(+) Rs.40,000/- [2025:RJ-JP:27569] (6 of 6) [CMA-537/2013] Funeral Expenses (+) Rs.15,000/- Loss of Estate (+) Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.7,12,600/- Already Awarded Amount(-) Rs.3,09,000/- Enhanced compensation Rs.4,03,600/-

18. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.7,12,600/- from the original amount of Rs.3,09,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.4,03,600/- before the learned concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimant is also entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount Rs.4,03,600/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until the realization of the said amount.

19. Accordingly, the present appeal stands partly allowed.

20. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. DEEPA-151 (MANEESH SHARMA),J