Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Meena Kunwar And Ors vs Bhanwarlal Godara And Ors on 27 January, 2021
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
(1 of 4) [CMA-4111/2011]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4111/2011
1. Smt. Meena Kunwar Widow of Shri Narayan Singh, by caste
Rajput, age about 19 years.
2. Nrimla Kanwar D/o Late Shri Narayan Singh, by caste Rajput,
age about 1 year through her natural guardian her mother Smt.
Meena Kanwar (Appellant No.1).
3. Shri Maan Singh S/o Shri Mohabbat Singh, by caste Rajput,
aged about 50 year.
4. Smt. Prem Kanwar W/o Shri Maan Singh, by caste Rajput,
aged about 46 years.
5. Bhanwar Sijngh S/o Shri Maan Singh, by caste Rajput, aged
about 16 year.
6. Miss Santosh Kunwar D/o Shri Maan Singh, by caste Rajput,
aged about 15 years.
Both the appellant No.5 & 6 are minor through their natural
guardian their father Shri Maan Singh (appellant No.3).
All are permanent resident of Sullahawas, Tehsil Girwa, District
Udaipur.
At present R/o. Care of Dayal Singh, Arihant Colony, Road
No.2, Purohiton Ki Madari, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Bhanwar Lal Godara S/o Mohan Lal Godara, by caste Jat, R/o.
Village Altava, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur (driver of Jeep
No. RJ-27-1C-5565).
2. Narendar Choudhary S/o. Mohan Singh Choudhary, R/o. 618,
Sikh Colony, Hiranmaghari, Sector No.11, Udaipur (Raj.) (Owner
of Jeep).
3. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager
(Udaipur) (Insurance company of Jeep No.RJ27-1C-5565).
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arun Dadhich on behalf of
Mr. Anuj Sahlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. UCS Singhvi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
(2 of 4) [CMA-4111/2011]
Judgment
27/01/2021
The matter comes up in the order's category.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for dispensing with
the service of notice upon the respondent No.2.
At the risk and cost of learned counsel for the appellants,
service of notice upon the respondent No.2 is dispensed with.
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants
against the judgment and award dated 16/06/2006 passed by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Fast Track No.6), Udaipur in Claim Case No.
864/2005(804/04). Vide said judgment and award dated
16/06/2006, an amount of Rs., 7,15,000/- was awarded in favour
of the appellants by the Tribunal.
Brief facts in narrow compass are that on 27/03/2004
Narayan Singh was going from Udaipur to Haldighati on a motor
cycle bearing registration No. TN-34-B-7475 along with his friend.
When he reached near Dakan Kotda then a Jeep bearing
registration No. RJ-27-1C-5565, which was driven rashly and
negligently by its driver, hit his motor cycle. Due to said accident,
he died on spot. A claim petition was filed by the appellants
before learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal, after analyzing the
evidence adduced by the parties and perused the material
available on record, has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,15,000/- in
favour of the appellants. Hence, the present appeal has been
preferred by the appellants for enhancement of the award passed
by learned Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that while
computing the award, learned Tribunal has not awarded the
(3 of 4) [CMA-4111/2011]
amount towards future prospects in the light of the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
Therefore, a sum of Rs.4,47,420/- is required to be enhanced in
this case. He further submits that there are six dependents in the
family of claimants and, therefore, deduction of 1/4 was required
to be made, whereas the Tribunal fell in error while deducting the
same as 1/3. He lastly submits that the deceased was 27 years of
age and, therefore, the multiplier of 17 is required to be employed
instead of 18 in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. DTC & Ors., (2009) 6
SCC 12.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance
Company submits that the computation done by learned Tribunal
was absolutely in accordance with the provisions of law prevailing
at the time when the case was decided. He further submits the
Tribunal has computed the amount on the basis of the evidence
adduced before it and, therefore, the award does not call for any
interference by this Court. He, however, fairly submits that in the
light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. DTC & Ors & National Insurance Company
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, the computation is required to be
recomputed in the present case.
Considering the submissions made at the bar, the award
dated 16/06/2006 passed by learned Tribunal is required to be
recomputed in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi
as under :-
(4 of 4) [CMA-4111/2011]
For future 50% of Rs.4760/- Rs. 2380/-
prospects :- (Income of
deceased)
Rs. 4760/- + Rs. 2380/- Rs. 7140/-
Amount to be deducted as Rs. 7140/- / 1/4 = Rs.
spent on himself. 1785/-
Dependence Amount Rs.7140 - Rs. 1785 =
Rs. 5355/-
The age of deceased was 27 years and therefore, a multiplier of
17 will be used.
(I) Compensation due to 5355x 12 x 17 Rs. 10,92,420/-
death
(Round off Figure)
(II) Loss of Consortium Rs. 70,000/-
Total Rs. 11,62,420/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal vide Rs. 7,15,000/-
award dated 16/06/2006
Enhanced amount Rs. 4,47,420/-
In view of the discussions made above, an amount of Rs.
4,47,420/- (Rupees : Four Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Four
Hundred Twenty Only) is enhanced in addition to the amount
already awarded by learned Tribunal vide its judgment and award
dated 16/06/2006. The Insurance Company shall pay the
enhanced amount within a period of six weeks from today. The
same shall carry interest @ 6% per annum till the same is paid.
The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
65-SanjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
