Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 472 of 2000 Appellant :- Smt. Ved Kumari And Others Respondent :- Rajasthan S.R.T.C. Jaipur And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation though more than 18 years have elapsed.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 16.12.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Xth Additional District Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. Case No. 965 of 1998 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.81,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% as compensation for the death of the sole bread winner of the appellants who are the widow, minor children and mother of the deceased.
3. Tribunal, according to Sri Madhav Jain, has misread itself in holding that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of Maruti Van as well as the Roadways and deducted the amount holding driver of the van negligent.
4. He has taken this Court through the record. The F.I.R. was lodged against the roadways but no charge-sheet was filed. The Tribunal has held both of them negligent to the tune of 50%. There was head on collision, hence, this Court does not disturb the said finding. This Court is unable to accept the submission of Sri Jain that the accident occurred only because of the fault of the driver of the Roadways bus.
5. This take this Court to the issue of quantum. The deceased was an agriculturist and he was 43 years of age. The Tribunal has considered his income to be Rs.12,000/- per year and multiplied the same with 13. According to Sri Madhav Jain even in the year of accident as he was an agriculturist his income should be Rs.3,000/- and as he was below the age of 50 years, 25% of the income should be added as the per the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and the multiplier should have been 14.
6. The income of the deceased was not proved, however, as he had his landed property and he was having motor vehicle also, his income can be considered to be Rs.3,000/- namely Rs.36,000/- to which 25% namely Rs.9,000/- will have to be added which would bring the figure to Rs.36,000 + 9,000 = 45,000/-. Out of which 1/3rd is required to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased, hence, the annual detum figure available to the family would be Rs.30,000/-. As the deceased was under the age bracket of 41-45, the applicable mutliplier would be 14 and not 13 in view of the decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. In addition to that Rs.40,000/- is granted under the non pecuniary damages over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head. Hence, the claimants would be entitled to a total sum of Rs.30,000 x 14 + 40,000 = 4,60,000/-.
7. The rate of interest will have to be 9% and not 12% in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Lucknow Bench in F.A.F.O. No. 199 of 2017 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lavkush and another) decided on 21.3.2017 which has been followed by this Court time and again and which will enure for the benefit of the respondents.
8. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The deduction would be of 50% of his own. The rest of the amount be deposited by the Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till award and 6% thereafter till the amount is deposited. The amount be deposited within a period of 12 weeks from today. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited.
9. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 DKS