Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company ... vs Makhanlal S/O Shri Sukharam

Rajasthan High Court

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company ... vs Makhanlal S/O Shri Sukharam on 6 May, 2024

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

[2024:RJ-JP:20890]

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1892/2020

Iffco     Tokio      General       Insurance       Company           Limited,    Having
Registered Office At Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Center - Saket,
New Delhi - 110017 And Having Its Earlier Regional Office At
Third Floor, A-13, Hanuman Nagar, Khatipura, Sirsi Road, Jaipur
And Having Its Current Regional Office 101, First Floor, Arg
Corporate Park, Gopalbadi, Ajmer Road Flyover, Above Prem
Motors, Jaipur- 302006 Through Its Constituent Attorney.
                                                                         ----Appellant
                                        Versus
1.        Makhanlal S/o Shri Sukharam, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
          Balesar, Tehsil Viratnagar, District- Jaipur (Raj)
2.        Sumitra Devi W/o Shri Mahanlal, Aged About 32 Years,
          R/o Balesar, Tehsil Viratnagar, District- Jaipur (Raj)
3.        Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Bhivaram, R/o Tavedi, Tehsil
          Viratnagar, District- Jaipur (Raj) (Driver Vehicle Bus No.
          Rj-32-Pa-2219)
4.        (A) Suresh Chand Saini S/o Shri Manguram, R/o Dhani
          Shivaji Ki, Thanagaji, District-Alwar (Raj), (Presently
          Registered      Owner        Vehicle       Bus      No.     Rj-32-Pa-2219)
          (B)Suresh Hari Singh S/o Shribhagwan Singh, R/o Village
          Badnagar,       Dhanidullesinghki,             Tehsil-Kotputli,       District-
          Jaipur. (Presently Power Of Attorney Vehicel Bus No.rj-32-
          Pa-2219)
                                                                     ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajdeep Rathore for Mr. C S Jodha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 06/05/2024 The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company (for short 'the Insurance Company') (Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:29:07 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:20890] (2 of 4) [CMA-1892/2020] aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shahpura, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.83/2016,(NCV No.1663/2016) whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,44,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition as compensation in favour of respondents-claimants (for short claimants).

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the impugned judgment and award dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Tribunal is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction and perverse to the well-settled proposition of law. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that the present case relates to a child who died at the age of 12 years. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 30,000/- per annum on notional basis and wrongly applied the multiplier of 17. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that in various pronouncement it is clearly stated if the age group of child is between 10 to 15 years and death occurred then amount of compensation should be Rs. 2,25,000/-. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding 40% towards future prospects. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal be modified accordingly.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Rajendra Singh and Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors." in Civil Appeal No. 2624/2020 decided on 18.06.2020.

(Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:29:07 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:20890] (3 of 4) [CMA-1892/2020] Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 30,000/- per annum and rightly awarded 40% towards future prospects. So, judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference of this court. So, appeal be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Kishan Gopal and Anr. Vs. Lala and Ors." in Civil Appeal No. 7137/2013 decided on 26.08.2013, and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of "Hansraj Vs. Mukesh Nath and Ors." in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1334/2022 decided on 09.04.2024.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as the learned counsel for the claimants.

It is an admitted position that the present case relates to the death of a child who was 12 years of age. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has not committed an error while calculating the income of the deceased-child as Rs. 30,000/- per annum on notional basis. The Tribunal has committed an error in applying the multiplier according to the age of deceased's mother. According to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 18 and if multiplier of 18 is applied then compensation is much higher then the awarded amount. The Tribunal has rightly awarded 40% towards future prospects. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error (Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:29:07 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:20890] (4 of 4) [CMA-1892/2020] in awarding the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 7,44,000/-. So the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, stands dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/154 (Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:29:07 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)