KRISHNA YADAV Vs. CHANDRABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISSATISFIED with the compensation awarded under the order dated 27.08.2004, passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, this civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant -claimant (hereinafter 'the claimant') whereby in respect of a claim petition at the instance of the claimant compensation of Rs. 4,54,280/ - in the aggregate along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 02.12.2002 till the date of payment has been awarded.

(2.) COUNSEL for the claimant has submitted that the deceased Rakesh Yadav aged 22 years was admittedly engaged as a constable with the Rajasthan Police on substantive basis and as per Ex -17 his salary was Rs. 4,942/ - p.m. at the time of death in a motor accident of 07.06.2002. Counsel has submitted that the compensation has been determined by the court below wrongly deducting 50% of the income of the deceased as his personal expenses and finding dependency of the claimant to an extent of remainder 50% only. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bilkish Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. : [(2008) 4 SCC 259] has held that where the deceased was 22 years of age and a bachelor, the dependency of his parents ought to have been taken at 2/3rd of his income and not 50%. In this view of the matter, the conclusion of the court below that the claimant was dependant on the deceased Rakesh Yadav, her son, to an extent of 50% of his salary deserves to be rectified by this Court. Counsel further submitted that while determining the compensation, the learned court below has failed to consider the future prospects of the deceased Rakesh Yadav who was holding a government job as a constable with the Rajasthan Police. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. [ : (2013) 9 SCC 65] has held that where a person is less then 40 years and in regular employment, future prospects as 50% of his salary at the time of his death should be reckoned for the purpose of determination of compensation. It was thus submitted that the compensation determined by the court below in its order dated 27.08.2004 is therefore liable to be accordingly enhanced/modified.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 27.08.2004, passed by the court below.