1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 395 of 1997
R S R T C
V/S
KAMLA & ORS
Mr. VINIT PANDYA for Mr. VK MATHUR, for the appellant /
petitioner
Mr. SABIR KHAN for Mr. PRADEEP SHAH & Mr. DHIRENDRA
KUMAR PANDEY for Mr. BS BHATI, for the respondent
Date of Order : 4.9.2008
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
ORDER
—–
This appeal has been filed by the owner of the
vehicle, being Corporation, challenging the award of the
M.A.C.T., Sirohi dt. 24.2.1997, decreeing the claim for a
total sum of Rs. 2,33,710/-.
The facts of the case as appearing from the claim
petition are, that the deceased Durga Shanker aged 48 years
was working as Gram Sewak. On 28.10.1993 he suffered an
accident near village Kodarala, on national high way at
10.30 in the morning. He was going on moped, and the
delinquent bus came on the wrong side, and hit him, as a
result of which he died. The claimants are 9 children
2
including 6 minor children, and one widow. The deceased was
alleged to be receiving a salary of Rs. 1921/- per month at
the time of death. The claim was contested interalia on the
ground, that the deceased had lost balance of his moped,
rather hit against the stationary bus towards the conductor
side. Thus, he himself was negligent in causing accident.
It was also pleaded, that the deceased was not having any
valid driving license to drive the moped, nor did he know
driving.
The learned Tribunal decided issue no. 1 being
about negligence, in favour of the claimants, after
appreciating the evidence produced on the side of the
claimants, so also the statement of the driver of the bus.
It was considered, that the bus had gone on the wrong side,
and if it had been on the correct side, accident would not
have occurred. It was also found, that at the time of
accident the road was not having any traffic, and the bus
was moving at the speed of 60 Kms., though subsequently the
driver deposed to be driving the bus at 40-45 Kms. Then,
deciding issue no.2, about quantum, the learned Tribunal
considered, that from the certificate Ex. 16 it is clear,
that the deceased was receiving a salary of Rs. 1921/- per
month, and was born on 9.9.1945. Thus, his age was 48
years, and the annual income was Rs. 23052/-. The learned
Tribunal found that the deceased was having a large family
of 10 dependents, and therefore, deduction for personal
3
expenditure was made only to the extent of 1/8th, and thus
annual dependency was assessed at Rs. 20171/-, and applying
multiplier of 10, the compensation of Rs. 2,01,710/- was
assessed. Then, the claimants had also claimed compensation
for the moped, which was totally destroyed. The learned
Tribunal considered Ex. 10, the mechanical report of the
moped, which showed that the moped had suffered a total
loss. The moped was purchased for Rs. 13313/-, and a
compensation of Rs. 12,000/- has been awarded on this
count. Then, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- have been awarded for
loss of consortium, and Rs. 5,000/- have been awarded for
performance of last rites. Thus a total sum of Rs.
2,33,710/- has been awarded.
Arguing the appeal it was contended by the learned
counsel for the appellant, that the deduction of 1/8th made
by the learned Tribunal, for personal expenditure, is
grossly inadequate, and at least 1/3rd deduction should have
been made. The next submission made is, that the award of
Rs. 12,000/- for the damages for moped is excessive, as the
total purchase price of moped was Rs. 13313/-. The
multiplier applied was, however, not disputed.
I have considered the submissions, and find, that
the moped was purchased in the year 1993 itself, and the
accident occurred on 28.10.1993. Thus, for all intent and
purpose, the moped was brand new, and when it has been
4
totally lost, as a result of accident, award of Rs.
12,000/- cannot be said to be excessive.
So far deduction on account of personal
expenditure is concerned, true it is, that normally 1/3rd or
at times 1/4th amount is deducted for personal expenditure,
and in some 1/6th of amount has also been deducted. The
learned Tribunal, as such, could have made deduction of
1/6th only, however, looking to the size of the family,
which was dependent on the deceased, and the fact, that
even if the deduction was to be made to the extent of 1/6th,
the total difference that it would make would be even less
than Rs. 10,000/-. It is established law, that interference
in appeal, in the quantum of compensation, is not to be
made to correct errors with mathematical precision, and
interference is not to be made, until and unless it is
found, that the same award is shockingly low, or shockingly
high. In that view of the matter, may be that the Learned
Tribunal should have made deduction to the extent of 1/6th
only, but looking to the over all consequence thereof, I am
not inclined to interfere with the extent of deduction
either.
The net result is that the appeal has no force,
and the same is dismissed.
( N P GUPTA ),J.
/Sushil/