Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. ... vs Kanchan Devi on 28 January, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 904/2019
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai , 6Th Floor, Leela
Buisness Park, Anden, Kurla Road, Mumbai 400059, Through Its
Authorised Signatory At Nk Tower, Opposite New Kohinoor
Cinema, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur. (Insurer Of Bolero Jeep No. Rj-
21-Ua-0393)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Kanchan Devi W/o Lt. Nemichand, Aged About 29 Years,
B/c Baori, R/o Peelwa, Teh. - Parbatsar, Dist. Nagaur.
2. Vikram S/o Lt. Nemichand, Aged About 10 Years, Minor
Through Natural Guardian Mother Resp. No. 1 Kanchan
Devi W/o Lt. Nemi Chand. B/c Baori, R/o Peelwa, Teh. -
Parbatsar, Dist. Nagaur.
3. Sarju Devi W/o Lt. Luna Ram, Aged About 64 Years, B/c
Baori, R/o Peelwa, Teh. - Parbatsar, Dist. Nagaur.
4. Shanti W/o Sh. Birma Ram, Aged About 51 Years, B/c
Baori, R/o Peelwa, Teh. - Parbatsar, Dist. Nagaur.
5. Durga Ram S/o Chena Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Berasar, Teh. -
Jayal, Dist. Jodhpur. (Owenr Bolero Jeep No. Rj-21-Ua-
0393)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Santosh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Panwar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
28/01/2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of
the parties, the matter is disposed of finally.
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment
and award dated 30.01.2019 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbatsar, Nagaur in Claim Case
No.16/10 (CIS-246/14).
The claim petition was preferred in view of the accident
occurred on 06.09.2009. The learned Tribunal after framing the
(2 of 3) [CMA-904/2019]
issues has awarded a sum of Rs.8,66,070/- to the claimants on
account of the death of Nemichand.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that
the learned Tribunal has erred in recording the finding on issue
No.3 that although, the premium of the policy was charged for the
"Act Only" policy, but the cover note and the policy shows the
same as comprehensive policy issued in the present case and
therefore, when the premium is charged for "Act Only" policy, the
Insurance Company will not be liable for the damages caused in
the present case as by a typographical error, the policy shows to
be comprehensive policy. Counsel further submits that the
accident occurred in the year 2009 whereas the Tribunal has taken
into account the rates prevailing in the Government Order dated
27.12.2010, and therefore, the amount awarded is on the higher
side. He further submits that while computing the deductions, the
grandmother of the deceased has also been considered as
dependent in the present case.
Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that
the Tribunal has examined the issue No.3 in detail and after
evaluating the evidence, has rightly computed the award in the
present case. He further submits that the comprehensive policy
was issued by the Insurance Company, therefore, they should not
be permitted to argue that the rates prevailing at the time of
accident were almost the same as the accident occurred on
6.9.2009 and thus, there was not much variation in the daily
minimum wages and since, it is a beneficial legislation, the award
does not call for any interference. He further submits that as far
as the calculation of the deduction is concerned, the grandmother
(3 of 3) [CMA-904/2019]
was very much dependent on the deceased and therefore, the
computation done by the learned Tribunal was just and proper.
I have considered the submission made at the Bar and I am
of the view that the Tribunal has discussed the issue No.3 in detail
and has rightly come to the conclusion that since, the "Insurance
Policy was in the nature of comprehensive policy" and merely
charging of the premium for the 'Act Only' policy will not absolve
the Insurance Company from the liability in the present case.
Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.3 is
justified and the same calls for no interference.
As far as computation of income to the tune of Rs.3510/- is
concerned, the Tribunal has adjusted the same keeping in mind
the rates prevailing at the time of accident. Even if, the same is
slightly on the higher side as it is a computation of 'just
compensation' and not much of difference can be made at this
juncture. The fact that the grandmother was dependent on the
deceased, therefore, the deduction done to the tune of 1/4th is
also just and proper and does not call for any interference by this
Court.
In view of the discussions made above, the judgment and
award dated 30.01.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal does not
call for any interference.
The appeal, is therefore, bereft of merit and same is hereby
dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
39-praveen/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
