JUDGMENT
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
These two appeals are directed against the final orders dated 29.04.2019
passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter
referred to as ‘High Court’) in two Miscellaneous Appeals (being S.B.Misc.
Appeal No. 441/2019 and S.B. Misc. Appeal No. 561/2019) filed by
1
Respondent No. 1 herein, seeking to set aside the judgment and award dated
26.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Kaman, District Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as
‘Learned Tribunal’) in Misc. Civil (M.A.C.) No. 18/2016 (13/2014) and Misc.
Civil (M.A.C.) No. 14/2014. Both these appeals arise out of the same accident.
Hence, they have been clubbed together and are being decided by this common
judgment.
2. In both the matters, the High Court allowed the appeal of Respondent
No.1 herein and modified the award passed by the Learned Tribunal, and
reduced the compensation awarded to the Claimants/Appellants.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 8179 OF 2022
3. The Appellants are the heirs and dependents of Ghasita Ram (hereinafter
referred to as ‘deceased’), who died on 29.10.2013 as a result of a motor
accident. The deceased was working as a driver in PNC Infratech Ltd. On
29.10.2013, at around about 8:00 PM, the deceased (along with his co-worker
Kanti Lal) was riding a motorcycle while returning home from work, when he
was hit from behind by a truck being driven by Respondent No. 3 in a rash and
negligent manner. The deceased and his co-worker were severely injured and
2
died on the spot. The deceased has left behind five dependents who are the
Appellants before this Court.
4. The Appellants filed a claim petition [being Misc. Civil (M.A.C.) No.
18/2016 (13/2014)] under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before
the Learned Tribunal, seeking compensation amounting to Rs.91,46,000/- along
with interest. Vide Judgment and Award dated 26.10.2018, the Learned Tribunal
awarded a compensation of Rs.19,64,218.75/- along with interest @ 7% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the
decretal amount.
5. The Learned Tribunal held that the deceased died as a result of the
injuries suffered in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of
Respondent No. 3 herein. The deceased’s age at the time of the accident was 41
years, and the same was ascertained by the Learned Tribunal on the basis of his
driving license (Exhibit-A1) which recorded his date of birth as 25.08.1972.
Exhibit-19 (Salary Certificate) and Exhibit-20 (Pay Slip) were produced. On the
basis of pay slip, the Learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.11,225/- per month. To this, 25% was added towards future prospects
bringing his monthly income to Rs.14,031.25/-. The Learned Tribunal added a
multiplier of 15, thereby calculating the compensation to be Rs.25,25,635/-
(Rs.14,031.25 x 12 x 15). After deducting 1/4th of the total income towards
3
personal expenses (amounting to Rs.6,31,406.25/-), the Learned Tribunal
arrived at a compensation of Rs.18,94,218.75/-. Further, the Learned Tribunal
awarded Rs.40,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
estate, and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
6. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal to the
Appellants under various heads was as under:
Sl.
No.
HEAD AMOUNT PAYABLE
1 Loss of dependency Rs. 18,94,218.75/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/-
3 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
4 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
TOTAL Rs. 19,64,218.75/-
The Learned Tribunal calculated the rate of interest at 7% per annum from
the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation of the decretal
amount. The Respondents were held jointly or severally liable to pay the
said amount.
7. Being aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the High
Court. Vide judgment and final order dated 29.04.2019, the High Court held
that the Learned Tribunal erred in relying on the salary certificate (Exhibit-19)
and pay slip (Exhibit-20) to ascertain the income of the deceased at Rs.11,225/-
per month, as the person who issued the said documents was not examined
before the Learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the High Court assessed the income
4
at Rs. 4,836/- per month in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State at the
relevant time. Out of this, 1/4th amount was deducted towards personal
expenses of the deceased, bringing the figure to Rs.3,627/-. To this, a multiplier
of 14 was added, and the compensation arrived at, was Rs.6,09,336/-
(Rs.3,627/- x 12 x 14). Further, 25% was awarded towards future prospects
(amounting to Rs.1,52,334/). Thus, the loss of dependency was calculated at
Rs.7,61,670/- (Rs.6,09,336/- + Rs.1,52,334/-). The High Court further awarded
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses. Therefore, a total compensation of Rs.8,16,670/- (Rs.6,09,336/- +
Rs.1,52,334/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/-) was awarded by the High Court. The
remaining terms and conditions of the original award passed by the Learned
Tribunal were affirmed.
8. Thus, the compensation awarded by the High Court under various heads
is mentioned as under:
Sl.
No.
HEAD AMOUNT PAYABLE
1 Loss of dependency Rs. 7,61,670/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/-
3 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
TOTAL Rs. 8,16,670/- @ 7% interest per
annum
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5
10. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellants argued that the High Court was not justifying in rejecting the pay
slip and salary certificate of the deceased by holding that the person issuing the
said documents was not examined. It was contended that the deceased’s wife
(Appellant No. 1 herein) had testified before the Learned Tribunal that the
deceased was earning around Rs.17,000/- from his employment as a driver and
also by doing agricultural work. The same had been testified by his co-workers
(who were also eye-witnesses to the accident) as well. It was further contended
that Appellant No. 1’s evidence with regard to the salary of the deceased was
corroborated by the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased. There was no
occasion for the High Court to set aside the Learned Tribunal’s order with
respect to a pure finding of fact and re-appreciate the entire evidence. It was
also mentioned that the Appellants could not inadvertently produce the passbook
of the deceased (reflecting his salary as Rs.12,000/- per month) before the
Learned Tribunal, and copies of the same have been filed before this Court.
11. To support the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the Appellants
placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shila Datta & Ors.1
1 (2011) 10 SCC 509
6
12. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of
Ramachanrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.2
13. It was next contended that the amount of Rs.40,000/- awarded towards
loss of consortium to five dependents is too meager and each dependent is
entitled to receive a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the said head. Reliance to
support the aforesaid contention has been made to the judgment of this Court in
the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nanu Ram & Ors.3
Social Justice
