Ability To Repay Heavy Loan Instalments Presupposes Existence Of Substantially Higher Income: Rajasthan High Court Grants Enhanced Motor Accident Compensation
The miscellaneous appeal before the Rajasthan High Court was preferred by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Rajasthan High Court
While granting enhanced compensation to the dependants of a man who died due to a motor accident, the Rajasthan High Court has held that the ability of an individual to repay heavy loan instalments regularly presupposes the existence of an income substantially higher than the liability discharged.
The miscellaneous appeal before the High Court was preferred by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (Tribunal).
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Rekha Borana stated, “In view of the above documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ability of an individual to repay heavy loan instalments on a regular basis, presupposes the existence of an income substantially higher than the liability discharged. In the given facts, it would be wholly unrealistic to assume that a person paying EMI exceeding Rs.35,000/- could have been subsisting on a meagre income of Rs.4,914/- per month. The financial outgo evidenced by the bank transactions constitutes strong circumstantial proof of the deceased’s earning capacity. Consequently, this Court deems it proper to hold that the deceased’s monthly earnings were definitely higher than the EMI payments, and the said fact ought to have been taken into consideration while assessing the quantum of compensation.”
Advocate S.K. Sankhla represented the Appellant, while Advocate Sunil A Vyas represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The incident dates back to 2014, when Dhalaram, while travelling from Balesar towards his native village on his motorcycle, was hit by a Bolero vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Dhalaram sustained grievous injuries and, despite best efforts, succumbed to the injuries. An FIR came to be registered. The offending vehicle, on the date of the accident, was duly insured with the fourth respondent Insurance Company. The appellants-claimants were the dependants.
The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs 7,88,692 (including interim compensation of Rs 50,000) in favour of the appellants-claimants. The appellants were aggrieved by the fact that the Tribunal erred in treating the deceased as an unskilled labourer drawing Rs 4,914 per month, whereas material on record disclosed that the deceased was engaged in mining operations, held requisite statutory consents, owned heavy machinery and was also engaged in agricultural activities yielding not less than Rs 10,000 per month.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench stated, “True it is that the claimants have not placed on record the Income Tax Returns or the audited financial statements to conclusively establish the quantum of earnings from any mining activity; or any formal lease deed or revenue document to substantiate the assertion that one of the mines was taken on lease from Smt. Sushila, however, the absence of such documentation does not ipso facto negate the fact of the deceased’s engagement in mining activities.”
As per the Bench, the official consent orders issued by the statutory authority constituted unimpeachable evidence that the deceased was actively carrying on mining operations before the unfortunate accident. The Bench also found compelling evidence relating to the ownership and financing of heavy machinery by the deceased.
Referring to various judgments, the Bench stated that an agriculturist cannot be treated at par with an unskilled labour as his vocation entails the application of knowledge and skill. The Bench assessed the income by synthesising several streams of his livelihood.
The Bench took note of the fact that he obtained consent letters from the statutory authority for carrying out mining activities; he was the registered owner of a Hydra Mob Crane for which he was punctually discharging a monthly instalment of Rs 35,170, and he also simultaneously held agricultural land capable of yielding regular income. The Bench thus concluded that the deceased was earning no less than an amount of Rs.45,000 per month from his mining and agricultural ventures.
Assessing the income at Rs 45,000, the Bench partly allowed the appeal and granted an enhanced compensation of Rs 60,62,636.
Cause Title: Smt. Imrati Devi v. Nattha Ram S/o Shri Mohan Ram (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:42439)