Through Its Constituent Attorney. vs Bharatpur Raj.

Judgment

1. Brijendra Singh S/o Shri Ramnath, R/o Village Karwari, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur. (Driver Of Vehicle).

Ramdayal S/o Shri Mangal Yogi, R/o Near Jhareda Phatak, Malipura, Hindaun City, District Karauli. (Owner Of Vehicle)

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Registered Office 19, Reliance Sector Balchandra Harichandra Marg, Walai Actor Mumbai 40038 (Insurer) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 618/2017 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Having Its Registered Office At 19, Reliance Center, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001 And Having Its Regional Office At C-Scheme, Man Upasana Tower, 6Th Floor, Sardar Patel Marg, Opposite To HSBC Bank, Jaipur - 3020001, Jaipur. Through Its Constituent Attorney. Versus ----Appellant

1. Smt. Archana W/o Late Shri Kripal Singh, Aged about 41 years, R/o Gandhi Nagar Jain Temple, Anah Farm, Sevar Bharatpur Raj. [2025:RJ-JP:15326] (2 of 9) [CMA-554/2017]

2. Apurv S/o Late Shri Kripal Singh, aged 13 years being Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother- Archana, R/o Gandhi Nagar Jain Temple, Anah Farm, Sevar Bharatpur Raj.

3. Mayank S/o Late Shri Kripal Singh, aged about 10 years being Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Archana, R/o Gandhi Nagar Jain Temple, Anah Farm, Sevar Bharatpur Raj.

4. Shakuntala W/o Late Shri Ram Singh, Aged about 72 years, R/o Gandhi Nagar Jain Temple, Anah Farm, Sevar Bharatpur Raj.

5. Brijendra Singh S/o Shri Ramnath, R/o Village Karwari, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur. (Owner Of Vehicle)

6. Ramdayal S/o Shri Mangal Yogi, R/o Near Jhareda Phatak, Malipura, Hindon City, District Karouli. (Driver Of Vehicle) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. JK Moolchandani (respondent in CMA No.618/2017) Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devanshu Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :: 03/04/2025 JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 21/04/2025 S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 554/2017

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) praying enhancement in the award dated

28.11.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur (Rajasthan), in claim case No. 447/2016 titled as Smt. Archana & ors. vs. Brijendra Singh and ors. whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 23,61,950/- in [2025:RJ-JP:15326] (3 of 9) [CMA-554/2017] favour of appellants-claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Kripal Singh. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 618/2017

2. This Appeal has been preferred by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited praying to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2016. Since, both the appeals are arise out of same award, hence, for the sack of convenience at the request of both the counsels, above appeals are being decided by the common judgment.

3. The necessary facts for disposal of the appeals are that on

21.12.2009, the deceased Kripal Singh was going on the Motor Cycle, when he reached near Golpura Village Mathura side then a Truck Dumper No.HR 38-J-3516 came in wrong side and hit the Motorcycle as a result of which deceased sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. Hence, claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal.

4. Notices were served to the Driver, Owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. The Driver and owner appeared before the learned Tribunal and have filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The Insurance Company of the offending vehicle appeared and filed the written statement disputing all the averments made in the claim petition.

5. Learned Tribunal has framed four issues for consideration. In support of claim petition, the claimants examined AW-1 Archana, AW-2 Subhash, AW-3 Gopal Taneja and AW-4 Deepa Taneja and [2025:RJ-JP:15326] (4 of 9) [CMA-554/2017] exhibited the documents from Ex.1 to Ex.20A. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the respondents.

6. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced on record, learned Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.23,61,950/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition till payment and if payment was not made within three months from the date of passing of the judgment, claimants will be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded compensation.

7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 28.11.2016, present appeals have been preferred.

8. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Main contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants is that the learned Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased properly. In conventional heads also the learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount which is not appropriate as per the law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He further contended that at the time of accident, the deceased was only 29 years of age, therefore, the learned Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 15. Learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding the interest in lower side, therefore award is liable to be enhanced. [2025:RJ-JP:15326] (5 of 9) [CMA-554/2017]

10. Opposing the contentions raised by learned counsel for the claimants, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that learned Tribunal has passed the award in higher side. While passing the award, the learned Tribunal has not followed the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court. He further argued that as per the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the future prospects as such compensation awarded being exorbitant deserves to be reduced and the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has further submitted that the learned Tribunal committed further error in awarding penal interest which is not permissible as per law.

11. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

12. At the outset, the manner in which the accident occurred is not disputed. The claimants have filed the appeals only on the point of quantum of compensation, hence there is no need for any discussion on the question of negligence.

13. With regard to the age of the deceased is concerned, as per the pleadings, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 35 years and AW.1-Archna has uttered in her statement that her age is 34 years and her husband was two or three years elder to her, therefore as per the pleadings supported by the statement of AW.1-Archna, at the time of accident, the deceased was in the age [2025:RJ-JP:15326] (6 of 9) [CMA-554/2017] group of 36-40 years so determination of age and accordingly multiplier of 15, applied by the learned Tribunal is appropriate.

14. Though in appeal, the appellants/claimants have mentioned that as per Income Tax Return, the monthly income of the deceased was 12,000/- per month and he was also getting incentive on monthly income but in support of income of Rs.12,000/- per month and incentive, the claimants/appellants have not filed any documentary evidence before the learned Tribunal. Hence, on the ITR filed soon before the death of deceased Kripal Singh containing his annual income as 1,31,240/- has rightly been appreciated by the learned Tribunal.

15. Learned Tribunal has made deduction of 1/4th from the assessed income considering four dependent members also in consonance with the principles determined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

16. Learned Tribunal has awarded future prospect as 50% of the determined income while as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of private employment for below 40 years ago, only 40% of future prospect is allowed.

17. Though, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1 lakh as spousal consortium and Rs.25,000/- for love and affection per claimant and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses. However, in view of the norms set by the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the [2025:RJ-JP:15326] (7 of 9) [CMA-554/2017] claimants/appellants are entitled for the modified compensation in conventional heads also.

18. Therefore, considering the Income Tax Return Exhibit-11, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,31,240/- adding to its 40% of future prospects is Rs. 52,496/-, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,83,736/- deducting Rs.3374/- as Income Tax, it comes to Rs.1,80,362/-. Since the deceased died leaving four dependents, therefore after deduction of 1/4th i.e. Rs.45,091/-, net income would come to Rs.1,35,271/- and loss of income comes to Rs.1,35,271X15=20,29,065/-.

19. In view of the above, the appellant/claimants are also entitled to sum of Rs.1,90,000/- with increase of its 10% of every three years under the non-pecuniary heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate & funeral expenses and thereby the appellants/claimants are entitled for Rs.2,28,000/- towards conventional heads as per the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance (supra).

20. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is ought to be re-assessed, and re-determined as follows:- Sr. No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Award modified by this Court (in Rs.)

3. Loss of income 21,61,950/- 20,29,065/- Love and affection 75,000/- Nil spousal Consortium 1,00,000/- 48,000/- [2025:RJ-JP:15326] (8 of 9) [CMA-554/2017]

7. parental consortium Nil 96,000/- for two children Filial Consortium Nil 48,000/- Loss of estate NIL 18,000/- Funeral expenses 25,000/- 18,000/- Total Compensation 23,61,950/- 22,57,065/-

21. The appellants/claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.22,57,065/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the above extent.

22. In view of the above discussion, the Insurance Company has been able to substantiate the grounds raised in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be dismissed and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be allowed partially.

23. The Appeal No. presented by the appellants/claimants is dismissed and the Appeal No. 618/2017 filed by the Insurance Company is partially allowed.

24. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified /enhanced award of amount before the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the appellant- claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire modified/ [2025:RJ-JP:15326] (9 of 9) [CMA-554/2017] enhanced award with accrued interest in proportion as determined in the original award passed by the learned Tribunal, after deducting the amount already withdrawn, if any, on making appropriate and necessary application before the Tribunal. The appellant-claimants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal, if any. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced amount upon production of certified copy of this judgment. Sunita/79-80 (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J