The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Ameer Chand Jain And Anr

Rajasthan High Court

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Ameer Chand Jain And Anr on 9 May, 2024

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

[2024:RJ-JP:21768]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1810/2017

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Anand Bhawan,
Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.       Ameer Chand S/o Shri Mahavir Prasad Jain, R/o Care Of
         Jain Kiraya Store, Alwar Road, Opposite Service Station,
         Kishangarh Baas, District Alwar. Premanent R/o Opposite
         Geeta Press, Shikari Pada, Munshi Bazaar, Alwar
2.       Smt. Santosh Jain W/o Shri Ameer Chand Jain, R/o Care
         Of Jain Kiraya Store, Alwar Road, Opposite Service
         Station, Kishangarh Baas, District Alwar. Premanent R/o
         Opposite Geeta Press, Shikari Pada, Munshi Bazaar, Alwar
3.       Totaram S/o Shri Kanaram, R/o Gram Bahadurpur, Tehsil
         Kishangarh Baas, District Alwar Presently Residing At 200
         Foot Road, Jat Colony, Ward No. 15, Alwar Driver Of
         Vehicle Tempo No. Rj 32 Ga 2391
4.       Rajendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Shyamlal Yadav, R/o
         Gram Bakhtala, Tehsil Kishangarh Baas, District Alwar
         Registered Owner Of Vehicle Tempo No. Rj-32-Ga-2391
5.       Ram Prasad S/o Shri Ramswaroop, R/o Bheem Nagar
         Colony, Rajbhata, Behind Saiyyed Ki Bagichi, Khundanpuri
         Road, Alwar Purchaser Of Vehicle Tempo No. Rj 32 Ga
         2391
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amar Nath Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sweta Soni, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 09/05/2024 The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:48:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21768] (2 of 3) [CMA-1810/2017] (for short 'the Insurance Company') aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 02.01.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar (for short 'The Tribunal') in Case No.530/2009, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.16,05,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition as compensation in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2- claimants (for short 'the claimants').

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal while passing the judgment and award dated 02.01.2017 had not considered the evidence led by the parties in right perspective. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is required to be set aside. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that the Tribunal had committed error in applying the multiplier of 17, whereas multiplier should be applied according to the age of parents. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that the Tribunal had committed error in awarding 50% of the deceased's income towards future prospects because deceased was not having a permanent job. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal be modified accordingly.

Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company and submits that the Tribunal rightly considered the age of the deceased while calculating the claim amount and rightly applied the multiplier of 17. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that deceased was working in a Modtech Material Handling Projects Private Limited Company and he was getting salary of Rs.20,537/- per month but the Tribunal had considered the deceased's income as Rs.10,000/- per month. So, no (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:48:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21768] (3 of 3) [CMA-1810/2017] interference is required in the Tribunal's judgment. So, appeal filed by the Insurance Company be dismissed.

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

It is an admitted position that deceased was 28 years of age and according to which, the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of 17. As per the age of the deceased, there is no need to consider the age of the parents of the deceased while calculating the award. The Tribunal had rightly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal had also rightly considered 50% of the deceased's income towards future prospects. So, present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

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

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /07 (Downloaded on 24/05/2024 at 09:48:53 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)