1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT
: S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1584/2013 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Jaipur vs. Smt. Narayani Devi & Ors. Date of Judgement 25th September, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr. Vinay Kothari, for the appellant. ---- BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 06.06.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran ('the Tribunal'), whereby, for the death of one Kuldeep Singh, compensation to the tune of Rs.18,10,800/- alongwith interest has been awarded by the Tribunal. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that excessive compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal as amount under various heads have been awarded without taken into consideration the facts involved in the present case. The award of compensation under the head of future prospects was contested. It was also submitted that three brothers of the deceased were claimants and taking the dependents as seven, 1/5th deduction for personal expenses only has been made, which is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme 2 Court. It was further submitted that as the deceased was a government servant not only that compassionate appointment is likely to be granted to the family, pension to the tune of Rs.5,500/- per month and Rs.7,00,000/- as a one time payment has been awarded to the family and, consequently, the said aspect should have been considered by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation for loss of income. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. So far as deduction by including three brothers of deceased is concerned, it has been specifically noticed by the Tribunal that father of deceased Kuldeep Singh had already expired and three brothers viz. Beer Bahadur, Nehpal Singh and Satya Pal Singh being minors were dependent on the deceased Kuldeep Singh and, therefore, the said brothers were rightly taken into consideration while considering the deduction under the head of personal expenses. So far as the award of future prospects is concerned, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : (2009) 6 SCC 121, Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir & Ors. :
2013. ACJ 1403 and Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. : (2013) 3 SCALE 160 a person having a settled job, his legal representatives are entitled to grant of compensation for future prospects. So far as the likelihood of grant of compassionate appointment to the family members and award of pension and lump sum payment is 3 concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kumar & Ors. v. Kishore Dan & Ors. :
2013. ACJ 1441 has held that the said aspects are mere incidents of service and cannot be taken into consideration while awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the above, the award impugned passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed. (ARUN BHANSALI), J.
A.K. Chouhan/- 69