Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Sita vs Gopal Meghwal And Ors on 16 August, 2021

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1122/2018

Om Prakash S/o Hajari Daroga, aged about 29 years, R/o Mangtala, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara Raj..

----Appellant Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 834/2018

1. Smt. Savita Kanwar W/o Late Shri Mahendra Singh Solanki, aged about 30 years,

2. Shanu D/o Late Shri Mahendra Singh Solanki, aged about 9 years,

3. Janu D/o Late Shri Mahendra Singh Solanki, aged about 06 years, Appellant No. 2 To 3 Is Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Savita Kanwar W/o Late Shri Mahendra Singh Solanki, Aged About 30 Years.

4. Smt. Paras Kanwar W/o Gopal Singh Solanki, aged about 59 years,

5. Gopal Singh S/o Bheem Singh Solanki, aged about 64 years, Appellant No. 1 To 5 is Resident Of Bhandal Jakholi Kalan, Post Naigad, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi Raj..

----Appellants Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd,

(2 of 17) [CMA-1122/2018]

Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 836/2018

1. Jamna Lal S/o Late Shri Uda Kumhar, aged about 39 years,

2. Shanker Lal S/o Late Shri Uda Kumhar, aged about 34 years, Appellant No. 1 And 2 Is Residents Of Mangtala, Police Station Kachhola, District Bhilwara Raj..

----Appellants Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 837/2018

1. Smt. Bhuri Devi W/o Shri Arjun Bairwa, aged about 53 years,

2. Arjun Bairwa S/o Shri Chandra Bairwa, aged about 58 years,

3. Durga Lal S/o Arjun Bairwa, aged about 23 years, Appellant Nos. 1 To 3 is Residents Of Mangtala, Police Station Kachhola, District Bhilwara Raj..

----Appellants Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through

(3 of 17) [CMA-1122/2018]

Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 838/2018

1. Smt. Dhapu W/o Late Shri Khana Mali, aged about 55 years,

2. Gopal S/o Late Shri Khana Mali, aged about 37 years,

3. Hajari S/o Late Shri Khana Mali, aged about 36 years,

4. Ram Prasad S/o Shri Khana Mali, aged about 32 years,

5. Madan Lal S/o Shri Khana Mali, aged about 23 years, Appellant No. 1 To 5 is Resident Of Mangtala, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara Raj..

----Appellants Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 839/2018 Shambhu Lal S/o Hira Lal Teli, aged about 49 years, R/o Mangtala, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara Raj..

----Appellant Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

(4 of 17) [CMA-1122/2018]

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 840/2018

1. Smt. Sita W/o Shri Ramdev Kumar, aged about 44 years,

2. Ramraj S/o Shri Ramdev Kumar, aged about 24 years,

3. Gopi Lal S/o Shri Debi Lal, aged about 64 years,

4. Smt. Mathri W/o Gopilal, aged about 62 years, Appellant No. 1 To 4 Is Resident Of Mangtala, Police Station Kachhola, District Bhilwara Raj..

----Appellants Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 846/2018 Ram Pal Mali S/o Shri Bhagoota Mali, aged about 34 years, R/o Mangtala, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara Raj..

----Appellant Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 847/2018 Debi Lal S/o Shri Ram Kishan Lohar, aged about 49 years, R/o Mangtala, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara Raj..

                                         (5 of 17)                    [CMA-1122/2018]


                                                                     ----Appellant
                                   Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1111/2018 Durga Lal S/o Shri Moti Lal Daroga, aged about 32 years, R/o Jakholi Kalan, Post Naigad, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi Raj.

----Appellant Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1112/2018 Asha D/o Shri Ghisu Mali, aged about 19 years, R/o Mangtala, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara Raj..

----Appellant Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

(6 of 17) [CMA-1122/2018]

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1113/2018 Khana @ Kana S/o Shri Kalyan Mali, aged about 64 years, R/o Mangtala, Tehsil Mandalgard, District Bhilwara Raj.

----Appellant Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1114/2018 Smt. Geeta W/o Shri Om Prakash Mali, aged about 32 years, R/o Bada Naya Gaon, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi Raj.

----Appellant Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1115/2018 Smt. Sita W/o Shri Raghuveer Daroga, aged about 27 years, R/ o Mangtala, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara Raj..

----Appellant Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd,

(7 of 17) [CMA-1122/2018]

Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1118/2018 Bhura @ Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Chhotu Mali, aged about 49 years, R/o Mangtala, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara Raj..

----Appellant Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1119/2018 Monu Teli S/o Shri Laxman Teli, aged about 20 years, R/o Mangtala, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara Raj..

----Appellant Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1120/2018 Anil S/o Shri Shambhu Lal Teli, aged about 19 years, R/o Mangtala, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara Raj..

                                                                     ----Appellant


                                         (8 of 17)                    [CMA-1122/2018]


                                   Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1121/2018 Sonu Mali S/o Shri Bhanwar @ Gopal Mali, aged about 19 years, R/o Mangtala, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara Raj..

----Appellant Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1123/2018 Ghisu S/o Shri Chhotu Singh Rajput, aged about 20 years, R/o Mangtala, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara Raj..

----Appellant Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Shri Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents

(9 of 17) [CMA-1122/2018]

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1124/2018 Shankar Mali S/o Shri Balu Mali, aged about 46 years, R/o Mangtala, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara Raj..

----Appellant Versus

1. Gopal Meghwal S/o Shri Nathu Lal, R/o Rana Ka Chamba, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.. - Owner

2. Lahari Lal Meghwal S/o Champa Lal, R/o Obara Khurd, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj. - Driver

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bhilwara Raj. - Insurance Company

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar & Mr. Pushkar Tamini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pritam Joshi Mr. Himanshu on behalf of Mr. Vipul Singhvi through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

16/08/2021

(1) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1122/2018 (2) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 839/2018 (3) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 846/2018 (4) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 847/2018 (5) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1111/2018 (6) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1113/2018 (7) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1118/2018 (8) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1121/2018 (9) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1124/2018

These appeals are preferred against the judgment and award

dated 09/08/2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bhilwara in claim case Nos.230/2014, 228/2014,

229/2014, 227/2014, 234/2014, 231/2014, 235/2014, 236/2014

(10 of 17) [CMA-1122/2018]

& 232/2014 on behalf of the appellants/claimants who suffered

various injuries on account of the accident occurred on

12/09/2013.

The Tribunal, after framing the issues, evaluating the

evidence on record and hearing counsel for the parties, decided

the claim petitions of the appellants/claimants.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

appellants sustained simple injuries for which the Tribunal

awarded a meagre sum as such the same is required to be

enhanced by this Court. He submits that on account of the injuries

suffered by the appellants, the expenses were incurred by the

appellants for the treatment, they suffered pain and agony, and

for some time, some of the appellants could not be able to

perform their day to day functions. He, therefore, submits that a

reasonable amount may be enhanced in their cases.

Learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the

arguments, have submitted that since the injuries suffered by the

appellants are simple in nature, the Tribunal rightly awarded the

amount of compensation in the present cases as the amount

awarded by the Tribunal can very conveniently be treated as 'just

compensation' in the present case.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the judgment dated 09/08/2017 passed by the Tribunal

as well as the records of the case including the injury reports of

the appellants.

The injury reports of the appellants show that all the

appellants suffered simple injuries and as per the injury reports, it

(11 of 17) [CMA-1122/2018]

can be reasonably inferred that though after primary treatment

the appellants were discharged, the fact of pain and suffering

cannot be ruled out.

Without going into the merits of the cases on overall

consideration of facts, this Court is of the view that if an amount

of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees : Five Thousand Only) in addition to the

amount already awarded by the Tribunal is awarded to the

appellants/claimants, the same will meet the ends of justice.

Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the appeals preferred by the

appellants are partly allowed. The respondent/Insurance Company

is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees : Five

Thousand Only) to each of the appellants/claimants as full and

final settlement towards the compensation in addition to the

amount awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated

09/08/2017 within a period of six weeks from today. If the said

amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the same will carry

an interest @ 6% per annum till the same is paid.

(10) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 836/2018 :

Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that the

amount awarded in the present case is not liable to be enhanced

in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi

reported in (2017) SC 5157 as the deceased was 70 years old

and, therefore, no amount towards the loss of future prospects is

liable to be awarded in this case.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the judgment dated 09/08/2017 passed by the Tribunal

as well as the record of the case.

(12 of 17) [CMA-1122/2018]

I am of the considered view that the amount awarded by the

Tribunal in the present case is just and proper and does not

require any interference by this Court, more particularly, when the

age of the deceased was 70 years old and, therefore, no amount

towards the loss of future prospects can be awarded in conformity

with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay

Sethi (supra). Therefore, the appeal is bereft of merit and the

same is, hereby dismissed.

(11) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 834/2018 :

(12) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 837/2018 :

(13) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 838/2018 :

(14) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 840/2018 :

Theses appeals are preferred against the judgment and

award dated 09/08/2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bhilwara in claim case Nos.16/2014, 13/2014, 393/2014

(wrongly mentioned as 393/2016) & 17/2014 whereby the

compensation amount of Rs. 9,90,000/-, Rs.7,15,000/-

Rs.6,65,088/- and Rs.5,25,000/-towards the death of deceased

Mahendra Singh, Ganesh, Khana Mali and Foru Kumhar

respectively were awarded to the claimants/appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants very fairly submits that

age, income and number of the dependents of the deceased

persons were correctly taken into consideration by the Tribunal.

However, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the

loss of future prospects in their cases. In support of his

submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SC 5157

(13 of 17) [CMA-1122/2018]

and submits that the amount towards loss of future prospects

should have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while

computing the award in the present cases. Learned counsel

further submits that the Tribunal committed an error while

deducting 20% of the amount towards the contributory

negligence. He submits that 20% amount deducted in the present

cases will cause hardships to the appellants.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

the Tribunal has correctly taken into consideration the evidence on

record and after appreciation of the same, the compensation has

been awarded. The same does not require any interference by this

Court. However, learned counsel is not in a position to dispute the

fact that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the

loss of future prospects in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Learned

counsel further submit that the deceased persons were travelling

in a tractor trolley and the owner and driver of the tractor trolley

as well as the Insurance Company with which the same was

insured have not been arrayed as party respondents in the present

case. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.

Brij Mohan & Ors, [Appeal (Civil) No. 2532 of 2007],

decided on 15/05/2007. Thus, the respondent-Insurance

Company cannot be fastened with the liability to pay the entire

compensation. The deceased persons were travelling in a tractor

trolley which is not passengers carrying vehicle and, therefore,

learned Tribunal has committed an error while awarding

compensation to the claimants.

(14 of 17) [CMA-1122/2018]

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and

gone through the judgment dated 09/08/2017 passed by the

Tribunal as well as the record of the case.

The argument of learned counsel for the respondents that

the owner, driver and Insurance Company of the tractor trolley in

which the deceased were travelling have not been arrayed as the

respondents is of no consequence as the Tribunal has already

reduced the compensation to the extent of 20% on account of the

deceased persons travelling in a non-commercial vehicle. Further,

it is noted that the findings of the Tribunal recorded vide its

impugned judgment have not been assailed before this Court by

the respondent Insurance Company. Therefore, this argument is

not available to the respondent in this case. Thus, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the

respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to be interfered and

the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the

respondents is distinguishable on this ground as the facts of the

judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents

has no application in the facts of the present case.

It is also noted that the Tribunal has reduced the amount of

compensation on the ground that the deceased persons were

travelling in a trolley attached with the tractor which was basically

not meant for transportation and thus, the findings recorded by

the Tribunal for deduction of 20% of the compensation amount is

not interfered with and the same is upheld. The amount towards

the loss of future prospects have not been awarded by the

Tribunal in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, this Court feels that

(15 of 17) [CMA-1122/2018]

the appellants are entitled for the same and since the factors used

by the Tribunal for computation of the income have not been

challenged by the counsel for the appellants, the same factors are

utilized for the purpose of calculation of the loss of future

prospects. The total amount towards the loss of future prospects

(after deducting 20% towards contributory negligence) is

Rs.2,44,800/-, 1,72,800/-, 1,40,828/-1,44,000/- respectively.

In view of the discussions made above, the appeals preferred

by the appellants are partly allowed. The respondent/Insurance

Company is directed to pay amounts of Rs.2,44,800/-, 1,72,800/-,

1,40,828/-1,44,000/- respectively to the appellants/claimants in

addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal within a

period of six weeks from today. The enhanced amount shall carry

an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim

petitions before Tribunal till the same is paid.

(15) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1112/2018 :

(16) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1114/2018 :

(17) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1115/2018 :

(18) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1119/2018 :

(19) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1120/2018 :

(20) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1123/2018 :

Theses appeals are preferred against the judgment and

award dated 09/08/2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bhilwara in claim case Nos.322/2014, 233/2014,

321/2014, 318/2014, 320/2014 & 319/2014 whereby the

compensation amount of Rs. 1,40,823/-, 2,04,312/-, 1,23,534/-,

1,60,745/-, 1,34,700/- and 1,65,550/- respectively have been

awarded.

(16 of 17) [CMA-1122/2018]

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal

has not awarded any amount towards the loss of future prospects

on account of the permanent disability suffered by the appellants.

In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon the

judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo

Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and ors. AIR 2020 SC 4424 and

Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways 2014 ACJ 692. He also

places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the cases of Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The national

Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2014SC 736 & Kajal vs.

Jagdish Chand & Ors, AIR 2020SC776. Learned counsel fairly

submits that the factors taken into consideration by the Tribunal

i.e. age, income and the percentage of disability suffered by the

claimants shall be taken into consideration while calculating the

amount towards the loss of future prospects and he does not

dispute the same. The calculation towards the same is as under :-

Sr.    Name        of Ag   Income    Permanent
                                     disability
                                                  Number   of Tribunal    Less     20% Future     Less 20%
No.    Injured        e                           Injury      awarded     Contributory Prospect   Contributo
                                                                          Negligence              ry
                                                                                                  Negligence
1.     Asha          15              15%          5   injuries 1,40,823   1,12,659     63,685/- 50,948/-
                                                  (1 Grievous
                                                  & 4 Simple)
2.     Smt. Geeta 28       4914/     18%          2   injuries 2,04,312   1,63,450     72,134     57,708/-
                           month                  (1 Grievous
                                                  & 1 Simple)
3.     Smt. Sita     23    4914/     10%          3   injuries 1,23,534   98,828       40,065     32,052/-
                           month                  (1 Grievous
                                                  & 2 Simple)
4.     Monu          16              18%          5   injuries 1,60,745   1,28,596     68,571     54,857/-
                                                  (2 Grievous
                                                  & 3 Simple)
5.     Anil          15              10%          5   injuries 1,34,700   1,07,760     42,456/- 33,965/-
                                                  (2 Grievous
                                                  & 3 Simple)

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have

submitted that after evaluating the evidence available on record,

the Tribunal has awarded a 'just compensation' in the present

case, therefore, the same does not require any interference by

(17 of 17) [CMA-1122/2018]

this Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel for the respondent submits

that the Tribunal has considered the evidence brought before it

and has rightly awarded the compensation for the injuries suffered

by the appellants. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is just

compensation in view of the injuries suffered by the appellant.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and

gone through the judgment dated 09/08/2017 passed by the