Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Prem Devi vs U.I.I.Co.Ltd.And Ors on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civ.cros.obj.misc. app No. 32/2013
Smt.Prem Devi Regar W/o Shri Bheru Lal Regar, aged about 40
years, R/o Kareda, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara (Raj.)
----Cross Objector
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional
Manager, Division Office, Bhilwara. (Insurer)
2. Roshan Das S/o Haridas Vaishnav, R/o Ratanpura, Police
Station Kareda, District Bhilwara. (Driver)
3. Paras S/o Deva Kumawat, R/o Gadari Kheda, Police Station,
Raipur, District Bhilwara.
4. Jonu S/o Paras Kumawat, minor through his natural guardian
father Paras S/o Deva Kumawat, R/o jGadari Kheda, Police
Station, Raipur District Bhilwara. (Claimants)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1442/2012
1. Paras S/o Deva Kumawat, R/o Gadari Kheda, Police Station,
Raipur, District Bhilwara.
2. Jonu S/o Paras Kumawat, aged about 02 years, Appellant No.
2 being minor through his natural guardian father Appellant No.
----Appellants
Versus
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Bhilwara.
2. Smt. Prem Devi Raigar W/o Bheru Lal Raigar, resident of
Kareda, Tehsil- Mandal, District Bhilwara.
3. Roshan Das S/o Haridas Vaishnav, Resident of Ratanpura,
Police Station Kareda, District Bhilwara.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar
Mr. Ayush Gehlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Johari
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
(2 of 5) [CCOMA-32/2013]
Judgment
15/03/2021
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the
matters are being heard and decided finally.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1442/2012
The present appeal has been preferred against judgment and
award dated 11.02.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bhilwara in MAC Case No. 310/2009. Vide judgment and
award dated 11.02.2012, the claim petition of the appellants was
allowed and a sum of Rs. 4,93,000/- was awarded on account of
the death of Smt. Pani in the accident which occurred on
28.02.2009.
Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the
evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties,
decided the claim petition of the claimants.
Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that
the findings of the Tribunal recorded on Issue No.3 is not
sustainable in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance
company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663. Admittedly, the driver
of the tractor was holding a licence for driving light motor vehicle
and the weight of the tractor was less than 7,500 Kg, therefore, in
light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the driver of
tractor was authorized and competent to drive the tractor which
was involved in the present case. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal
on Issue No.3 are incorrect and the Insurance Company is liable to
pay the compensation to the claimants.
Learned counsel further submits that age of the deceased
was 22 years at the time of accident, therefore, a multiplier of 18
(3 of 5) [CCOMA-32/2013]
is required to be used in the present case while calculating the
amount of compensation. He submits that the deceased was
involved in the stitching and tailoring work and was earning Rs.
12,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has only taken into
consideration Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased
which is on a very lower side. He submits that 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, the loss of income towards future prospects has not been taken
into consideration while computing the award.
Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits
that the Tribunal has rightly decided Issue No.3 on the ground that the
tractor was being driven with a trolley and, therefore, it was being used
for the purposes of transportation of the goods whereas the insurance
cover was only with respect to the tractor insured towards the Farmer's
Damage Policy, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the
Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount. However, he is
not in a position to controvert the submission of the learned counsel for
the appellant with respect to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). Learned counsel for the
Insurance Company further submits that the amount of Rs. 3,000/-,
taken into consideration as the income of the deceased, is perfectly
justified and does not call for any interference.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have
gone through the judgment dated 11.02.2012 as well as the relevant
record of the case.
The fact that at the time of death, Pani Devi was 22 years of age,
therefore, multiplier of 18 is required to be applied and the amount of
future prospects is also required to be taken into consideration in the
(4 of 5) [CCOMA-32/2013]
light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra).
Thus, the compensation amount in the present case is required to
be recomputed as under:-
For future 40% of Rs.3,000/- Rs. 1200/-
prospects :- (Income of
deceased)
Rs. 3,000/-+ Rs. 1200/- Rs. 4200/-
Amount to be deducted as Rs. 4200/- / 1/3= Rs.
spent on himself. 1400/-
Dependence Amount Rs. 4200- Rs. 1400=
Rs. 2800/-
The age of deceased was 22 years, therefore, a multiplier of
18 will be applied.
(I) Compensation due to 2800 x12 x 18 Rs. 6,04,800/-
death
(II) Consortium Rs. 77,000/-
Total Rs. 6,81,800/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 4,93,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs. 1,88,800/-
In view of the discussion made above, the present appeal is
allowed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced
amount of Rs.1,88,800/-(Rs. One Lac Eighty Eight Thousand Eight
Hundred only) in favour of the appellants-claimants in addition to the
amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment and award
dated 11.02.2012 within a period of six weeks from today. The
enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition, till the same is paid.
(5 of 5) [CCOMA-32/2013]
S.B. Civ. Cross. Obj. Misc. App No. 32/2013
As far as cross objection of Smt. Prem Devi (owner of the vehicle)
is concerned, in view of the discussion made above on Issue No.3, the
finding of the Tribunal has already been set aside in light of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund
Dewangan (supra), therefore, the cross appeal filed by the applicant-
claimant is allowed and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation as ordered in the preceeding para.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
41-42/VivekM/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
