Rajasthan High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Savitri Devi W/O Late Sh. Sita Ram on 5 April, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 259/2020
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager,
Branch Office Near Poonam Talkies, Lalshot Road, Jaipur Having
Its Regional Office At Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its
Constituted Attorney.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Savitri Devi W/o Late Sh. Sita Ram, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Kableshwar, Tehsil And District Dausa, (Raj.)
2. Lokesh S/o Late Sh. Sita Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Kableshwar, Tehsil And District Dausa, (Raj.)
3. Anoop S/o Late Sh. Sita Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Kableshwar, Tehsil And District Dausa, (Raj.)
4. Smt. Prabhati Devi W/o Aniram, Aged About 73 Years,
R/o Kableshwar, Tehsil And District Dausa, (Raj.)
Respondents-Claimants
5. Sanjay Singh S/o Sh. Pyare Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Pathroula Khurd, Police Station Rajakheda, District Dholpur (Raj.) (Driver Of Vehicle)
6. Rajveer Singh S/o Sh. Hakeem Singh, R/o Gher Nagar, Rajakheda, Dholpur (Raj.) (Owner Of Vehicle)
----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Sharma, Adv. for Mr. Sandeep Mathur, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date Of Judgment 05/04/2024 The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-non-claimant-The New India Assurance Company Limited (for short 'the Assurance Company') against the judgment and award dated 17.09.2019 (Downloaded on 19/04/2024 at 09:07:36 PM) (2 of 4) [CMA-259/2020] passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No.31/2016, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents claimants Nos.1 to 4 (for short 'the claimants') has been partly allowed and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.31,19,816/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition in their favour and against the respondents-non-claimants (for short 'the non- claimants') jointly and severally.
Learned counsel for the Assurance Company submits that the Tribunal has erred in not deducting Rs.1,450/- per month being paid against house rent to the deceased. Learned counsel for the Assurance Company further submits that house rent is required to be deducted from the gross income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the Assurance Company also submits that the Tribunal has erred in not applying the split multiplier overlooking the fact that the deceased was to retire after 6 years. So amount be calculated as per the split multiplier. Learned counsel for the Assurance Company also submits that previously vide judgment and award dated 23.06.2017, the Tribunal fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation on non-claimant Nos.5 and 6 as Claim petition filed by the claimants was decided against the respondent Nos.5 and 6 and at that time, the Assurance Company was not a party in the claim petition. The respondent No.6-Rajveer Singh filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.2185/2019 before this court and this court vide order dated 04.02.2019 decided the writ petition and set-aside the order dated 02.05.2016, whereby ex- parte proceedings were drawn against the respondent Nos.5 and 6 as also the order dated 08.10.2018 rejecting the respondent (Downloaded on 19/04/2024 at 09:07:36 PM) (3 of 4) [CMA-259/2020] Nos.5 and 6's application, directed the claimant to implead the Assurance Company as a party in the claim petition and the Tribunal was expected to decide the matter expeditiously. So, the Assurance Company can not be held liable to pay interest from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 11.12.2015. So, the judgment and award dated 17.09.2019 be modified accordingly.
Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Assurance Company and submitted that the judgment and award dated 17.09.2019 passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference. So, the appeal filed by the Assurance Company be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Assurance company as well as learned counsel for the claimants.
The Tribunal while calculating the income of the deceased, has taken into consideration the salary certificate(Ex-17). So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.34,657/- per month after deducting the income tax. So, no interference is required for re-assessing the deceased's income. The Tribunal has rightly included house rent allowance (HRA) in the deceased's income but the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability on the Assurance Company to pay interest to the claimants from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 11.12.2015. At the time, when the judgment and award dated 23.06.2017 was passed, the Assurance Company was not a party but it was impleaded as a party respondent thereafter as per direction of this court vide order dated 04.02.2019 in S. B. (Downloaded on 19/04/2024 at 09:07:36 PM) (4 of 4) [CMA-259/2020] Civil Writ Petition No.2185/2019. So, the Assurance Company is liable to pay the interest after being impleaded as a party in the claim petition. So, the judgment and award dated 17.09.2019 passed by the Tribunal is required to be modified accordingly.
Accordingly, the Assurance Company is directed to pay interest @ 7% as per the judgment and award dated 17.09.2019 from the date when it was impleaded as a party respondent and not from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 11.12.2015.
Impugned judgment is modified as indicated above. Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/299 (Downloaded on 19/04/2024 at 09:07:36 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)