Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babita And Ors vs Mangilal And Ors on 24 March, 2021
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
(1 of 16) [CMA-676/2004]
`HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 676/2004
Manoj S/o. Shanker Nat, age 28 years, R/o. Dhundhara, Tehsil
Luni, District Jodhpur at present resident of 57/A, Neha
Apartment, Civil Lines, Delhi.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mangilal S/o. Himmata Ram, by caste Vaishnav, R/o. Bhagat Ki
Kothi, Jodhpur.
2. Prakash Chandra Jain S/o. Babulal Jain, R/o. Bhati Bhawan,
Bombay Motor Choraha, Jodhpur.
2A. Udai Singh S/o Jor Singh Rajpurohit, R/o. Araba at present,
R/o. 4/8, Balotra District Barmer.
3. National Insurance Company Limited near Bas Stand, Balotra
4. Ramzan Khan S/o. Sher Khan, by caste Musalman R/o.
Dhundhara (Dundhara), Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
5. The New India Insurance Company Limited, 12 th Pal Road,
Jodhpur.
----Respondent
Connected With
1. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 360/2003
National Insurance Company Limited, through its legally
constituted authority, Divisional Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ramzan Khan S/o Shri Sher Khan
2. Smt. Sayari W/o Shri Ramzan Khan
Both by caste Musalman, Resident of Village Dhundhada,
Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
3. Mangilal S/o Shri Himtaram Vaishnav, Resident of Village
Silor, P.S. Samdari, District Barmer.
4. Udai Singh S/o Shri Jogsingh Rajpurhohit, Resident of G-8,
Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 361/2003
National Insurance Company Limited through its legally
constituted authority, Divisional Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Jahoor wife of Late Shri Hakim Khan
(2 of 16) [CMA-676/2004]
2. Miss Salima D/o. Shri Hakim Khan (Minor)
3. Miss Baby D/o Shri Hakim Khan (Minor)
Minors are represented through their next friend mother Smt.
Jahoor, R/o. Village Dundhara, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
4. Shri Ramzan Khan s/o. Shri Sher Khan
5. Smt. Sayari W/o Shri Ramzan Khan,
both by case Musalman, R/o. Village Dhundhada, Tehsil Luni,
District Jodhpur.
Claimants.
6. Mangilal S/o Shri Himtaram Vaishnav, R/o. Village Silor, PS
Samaar, Tehsil and District Barmer.
7. Udai Singh S/o Shri Jog Singh Rajpurohit, R/o. G-8, Balotra,
District Barmer.
Non-applicants Nos.1 & 2.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 366/2003
National Insurance Company Limited, through its legally
constituted authority, Divisional Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Manoj S/o Shri Shanker Ji Nut, at present R/o Village
Dhundhada, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
2. Mangilal S/o Shri Himtaram Vaishnav, R/o Bhagat Ki Kothi
presently at Village Silor, District Barmer.
3. Prakash Chandra Jain S/o Shri Babu Lal Jain, R/o Bhati
Bhawan, Near Bombay Motor Circle, Jodhpur.
4. Udai Singh S/o Shri Jorsingh Rajpurhohit, R/o Araba,
presently residing at G-8, Balotra, District Barmer.
5. Ramzan Khan S/o Shir Sher Khan Musalman, R/o Village
Dhundhada, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
6. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Abhay
Chambers, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 367/2003
National Insurance Company Limited, through its legally
constituted authority, Divisional Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Manoj S/o Shri Shanker Ji Nut, R/o Village Dhundhada, Tehsil
Luni, District Jodhpur.
claimant
(3 of 16) [CMA-676/2004]
2. Mangilal S/o Shri Himtaram Vaishnav, R/o Bhagat Ki Kothi,
presently at Village Silor, Tehsil and District Barmer.
3. Prakash Chandra Jain S/o Shri Babu Lal Jain, R/o Bhati
Bhawan, Near Bombay Motor Circle, Jodhpur.
4. Udai Singh S/o Shri Jorsingh Rajpurohit, R/o Araba,
presently residing at G-8, Balotra, District Barmer.
5. Ramzan Khan S/o Shri Sher Khan Musalman, R/o Village
Dhundhada, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
6. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Abhay
Chambers, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur
Non Applicants No.1, 2, 2A, 4 and 5.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 368/2003
National Insurance Company Limited, through its legally
constituted authority, Divisional Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Amrit lal S/o Shri Chetan
2. Mukesh S/o Amrit Lal {Minor}
3. Naresh S/o Amrit Lal {Minor}
4. Miss Bhanwari D/o Amrit Lal {Minor}
5. Miss Kavita D/o Amrit Lal {Minor}
Minors are represented though their natural guardian father
Shri Amrit Lal
----Respondents/Claimants
6. Mangi Das @ Mangilal S/o Shri Himtaram Vaishnav, R/o
Bhagat Ki Kothi, presently at Village Silor, Tehsil and District
Barmer.
7. Prakash Chandra Jain S/o Shri Babu Lal Jain, R/o Bhati
Bhawan, Near Bombay Motor Circle, Jodhpur.
8. Udai Singh S/o Shri Jotsingh Rajpurohit, R/o Araba,
presently residing at G-8, Balotra, District Barmer.
9. Ramzan Khan S/o Shri Sher Khan Musalman, R/o Village
Dhundhada, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
10. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Abhay
Chambers, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur.
----Respondents/Non-Claimants
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 369/2003
National Insurance Company Limited, through its legally
constituted authority, Divisional Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur.
(4 of 16) [CMA-676/2004]
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt.Babita W/o Shri Mahendra
2. Miss Asha D/o Dhri Mahendra {Minor}
3. Miss Bhagyashri D/o Shri Mahendra {Minor}
Minors are represented by thir natural guardian mother Smt.
Babita W/o Shri Mahendra. All by caste Nut, R/o Village
Dhundhada, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents/Claimants
4. Mangilal S/o Shri Himtaram Vaishnav, R/o Bhagat Ki Kothi.
Presently residing at Village Silor, Tehsil and District Barmer.
5. Prakash Chandra Jain S/o Shri Babu Lal Jain, R/o Bhati
Bhawan, Near Bombay Motor Circle, Jodhpur.
6. Udai Singh S/o Shri Jorsingh, Rajpurohit, R/o Araba.
Presently residing at G-8, Balotra, District Barmer.
7. Ramzan Khan S/o Shri Sher Khan Musalman, R/o Village
Dhundhada, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
8. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Abhay
Chambers, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur.
Non Applicants No.1, 2, 2A, 4 and 5.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 494/2004
1. Babita W/o late Mahendra aged about 23 years.
2. Asha D/o Late Mahendra {Minor}
3. Bhagya Shree D/o Late Mahendra {Minor}
All by caste Nat R/o Dhundhara (Dudhar) District Jodhpur.
Appellant No. 2 and 3 are minor through their natural
guardian mother Smt. Babita Devi.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Mangilal S/o Himtaram by caste Vaishnav R/o Bhagat Ki
Kothi, Jodhpur
2. Prakash Chandra Jain S/o Babulal Jain R/o Bhati Bhawan,
Bombay Motor Choraha, Jodhpur.
2.A Udai Singh S/o Jorsingh Rajpurohit R/o Araba. At present
R/o Balotra, District Barmer.
3. National Insurance Company Ltd., Balotra, District Barmer
4. Ramzan Khan S/o Sher Khan by caste Musalman R/o
Dhundhara (Dudhara) Tehsil Luni District Jodhpur.
5. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Residency Road,
Jodhpur.
(5 of 16) [CMA-676/2004]
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 675/2004
Manoj S/o shaker Nat, aged about 31 years, R/o.Dhundhara,
Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur. At present R/o 57/A, Neha
Apartments, Civil Lines, Delhi
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mangilal S/o Himmata Ram by caste Vaishnav R/o Bhagat Ki
Kothi, Jodhpur.
2. Prakash Chandra Jain S/o Babulal Jain R/o Bhati Bhawan,
Bombay Motor Choraha, Jodhpur.
2.A Udai Singh S/o Jorsingh Rajpurohit R/o Araba. At present
R/o Near Bus Stand, Balotra, District Barmer.
3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Station Road, Balotra,
District Barmer.
4. Ramzan Khan S/o Sher Khan by caste Musalman R/o
Dhundhara (Dudhara) Tehsil Luni District Jodhpur.
5. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Residency Road,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 706/2004
1. Amritlal S/o Chetan
2. Mukesh S/o Amrit
3. Naresh S/o Amrit
4. Bhanwari D/o Amrit
5. Kavita D/o Amrit
All by caste Nat R/o Dudara Tehsil Luni District Jodhpur.
Appellants-Claimants No. 2 to 5 are minors through their
natural guardian and father, Amritlal, appellant-claimant
No.1.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Mangidas @ Mangilal S/o Himmata Ram by caste Vaishnav
R/o Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur.
2. Prakash Chandra Jain S/o Babulal Jain R/o Bhati Bhawan,
Bombay Motor Choraha, Jodhpur.
2.A Udai Singh S/o Jorsingh Rajpurohit R/o Araba. At present
R/o Balotra District Barmer.
(6 of 16) [CMA-676/2004]
3. National Insurance Company Ltd., Balotra.
4. Ramzan Khan S/o Sher Khan by caste Musalman R/o
Dhundhara (Dudhara) Tehsil Luni District Jodhpur.
5. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Chandra Vyas &
Ms. Mamta Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Purohit on behalf of
Mr. M.S. Purohit
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki on behalf
of Mr. J.R. Patel.
Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat &
Mr. Shubham Modion behalf of
Mr. Ravi Bhansali.
Mr. Manish Patel
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
24/03/2021
All the appeals are being decided by this common judgment,
as they arise out of the common judgment and award dated
21/12/2002.
The present appeals have been preferred against the
judgment and award dated 21/12/2002 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Pali in Motor Accident Claims Case
Nos.41/2001(96/94), 34/2001 (69/94), 35/2001 (70/74),
43/2001 (98/94), 41/2001(96/94), 46/2001 (101/94), 47/2001
(102/94) respectively.
Brief facts of the case are that on 17/04/1994, Suman,
Mangi, Chatar Daan, Jooni, Rani, Kunnai, Mahendra and other
persons had gone from Dhundhada to Godawas Bavji Ka Than in
the Jeep bearing registration No.16 C 0226. While they were
returning, one Hakim Khan sat in the Jeep from Godawas. The
(7 of 16) [CMA-676/2004]
said jeep was being driven by Hakim Khan S/o. Ramjaan Khan in
its correct direction. When they reached at the circle of Village
Giradhara, Mangilal driver of the bus bearing No. RJ19 P0681
came from opposite direction i.e. Roopawas by driving the bus
rashly and negligently and hit the Jeep No. RJ 16 C 0226 from
front side. Due to which, Suman, Mangi, Kunnai, Mahendra,
Chhotu Khan and Jeep Driver Hakim Khan sustained injuries
resulting into their death, whereas the passengers of the jeep,
namely, Chhatar Dan, Jaani and Rani received injuries and the
jeep was also damaged. Separate Claim petitions were preferred
by the legal heirs of the deceased and injured persons before the
Tribunal.
The Tribunal after framing the issues, adjudicating the
evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties partly
allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation to the
claimants as mentioned in the impugned judgments.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, while
attacking the finding on issue No.4 (in claim case Nos.34 & 35)
and issue No.3 (in claim case Nos. 41 to 47) has submitted that
when the cheque dated 10/01/1994 towards the Insurance of the
Vehicle given by the owner of the vehicle was tendered in the
bank by the Insurance Company, the same was dishonoured on
24/01/1994, therefore, the Insurance Company on 02/02/1994
cancelled the Insurance Cover Note dated 10/01/1994. An
information to this effect was sent to the owner of the vehicle by
the registered post. The same information was also sent through
registered post on 03/02/1994 to the District Transport Officer,
(8 of 16) [CMA-676/2004]
Jodhpur. Learned counsel submits that when the Insurance Cover
Note (Ex.A-1) dated 10/01/1994 stood canceled, issuance of
insurance policy in furtherance of the canceled cover note is of no
consequence.
Learned Counsel further submits that even if it is assumed
for a moment that some premium was paid thereafter, the date for
covering the Insurance Policy would be effective from the date on
which the premium was deposited by the insured. In these
circumstances, the counsel submits that the presumption that
premium was paid in the present case before issuance of the
Insurance Policy on the face of it is baseless.
It is further contended that in the testimony of NAW2 Kunj
Bihari Dave, the chronological sequences of events came on
record that cover note issued by the Insurance Company was
canceled and nothing contrary was stated by this witness in the
cross-examination. In view of the statement given by NAW2 Kunj
Bihari Dave, it is clear that at the time of accident, Insurance
Cover of the vehicle was not in existence. It is also argued that no
suggestion was given to the effect that any premium was paid
after the cancellation of the cover note. To buttress his contention,
learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has relied
upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Coordinate
Benches of this Court in the cases of Deddappa & Ors vs.
Branch Manager, National Insurnace Co. Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC
595, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Seema Malhotra & Ors
(2001) 3 SCC 151 & Ishwar Singh vs. Bheru Singh & Ors
(SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 256/2001), New India Assurance
Company Ltd. vs. Mohan Kanwar & Anr (S.B. Civil Misc.
(9 of 16) [CMA-676/2004]
Appeal No.500/1995), Vela & Anr. vs. Babu @ Badiya & Ors,
2012 R.A.R. 9 (Raj.).
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that admittedly
the driver of the bus Mangilal was having driving licence of light
motor vehicle and, therefore, he was not eligible to drive the bus
which was a heavy transport vehicle. The Tribunal decided issue
No.6 holding that since the driver of the bus was holding a licence
of light motor vehicle only and, therefore there was breach of the
condition of the policy and, thus a direction was given to the
Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the
same from the owner. The counsel further submits that the above
finding is unsustainable in the light of the provisions of Sections 3
and 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which binds the owner of the
vehicle to allow his vehicle to be driven by a person holding the
requisite driving licence only. In the present case, if the owner
allowed the driver to drive the vehicle for a long time though he
was holding only a driving licence of light motor vehicle, the same
is a fundamental breach of the conditions of the Insurance policy.
In such circumstances, the appellant company could not be
fastened with a liability to pay the compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
submits that vide notice of cancellation dated 02/02/1994
(Annex.A4A), the policy No. 6301942 itself was canceled.
Therefore, the Tribunal incorrectly relied upon the policy issued by
the appellant-Insurance Company on 25/02/1994. He submits that
since pursuant to cancellation of the cover note issued on
10/01/1994, the policy itself was canceled, there is no question of
considering Ex.-A9 as a valid insurance policy.
(10 of 16) [CMA-676/2004]
Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents
submits that the findings of the Tribunal recorded on issue No.4
(in claim case Nos.34 & 35) and issue No.3 (in claim case Nos. 41
to 47) do not suffer from any infirmity for the simple reason that
the Insurance Policy dated 25/02/1994 was neither canceled nor
any notice to that effect was received by the owner. Therefore, the
presumption that premium was deposited prior or after the
issuance of the policy cannot be said to be unfounded. He further
submits that as per the statement of NAW2 Kunj Bihari Dave,
nothing was said about the cancellation of the Insurance Policy
issued by the Insurance Company on 25/02/1994 and, therefore,
there was no occasion for the claimants to cross-examine him with
respect to the deposition of the premium towards the Insurance of
the Vehicle. He submits that the claimants are third party in the
present case and if there was any violation of the contract
between the Insurance Company and the insurer, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be found faulty as
the direction of the Tribunal is only to pay the compensation
amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In
whatever situation, as far as the claimants are concerned, the
amount is required to be paid to them for the damages suffered
by them in the accident. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal on
issue No.4 (in claim case Nos.34 & 35) and issue No.3 (in claim
case Nos. 41 to 47) are not required to be interfered with. In
support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
claimants/respondent has placed reliance on the judgments of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Babu Tiwari vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd, 2008 ACJ 2654 and
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors, 2004
(11 of 16) [CMA-676/2004]
DNJ (SC) 154, wherein in the similar set of facts, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has given directions to the Insurance Company to
pay the amount of compensation and recover the same from the
owner.
Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submits that
although the finding on issue No.6 is recorded that driver Mangilal
was holding the driving licence of light motor vehicle but it was
not proved before the Tribunal that despite driver Mangilal was
having driving licence of light motor vehicle, he was allowed to
drive heavy transport vehicle by the owner. Nothing was come on
record that it was well within the knowledge of the owner that
Mangilal was having a driving licence of light motor vehicle only
and he was allowed to drive the bus which was a heavy transport
vehicle. Thus, there was no violation of the condition of the
Insurance Policy. He, therefore, submits that the findings recorded
by the Tribunal on this issue also need no interference.
I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have
gone through the impugned judgment as well as other relevant
record of the case.
The findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.4 (in claim case
Nos.34 & 35) and issue No.3 (in claim case Nos. 41 to 47) do not
suffer from any infirmity on account of the fact that even if the
notice was issued for canceling the cover note on 02/02/1994 and
03/02/1994 to the owner and District Transport Authority
respectively, the Insurance Policy dated 25/02/1994 was never
canceled. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly proceeded in the case
presuming that before issuance of the insurance policy, the
amount was duly deposited. It is a fact of general knowledge that
insurance policy is issued by the Insurance Companies only after
(12 of 16) [CMA-676/2004]
the premium is received. Therefore, no wrong was committed by
the Tribunal in presuming the fact that the premium for the
Insurance Policy dated 25/02/1994 was paid. It is also noted by
the Tribunal that there was no proof that the notice of cancellation
was ever received by the owner prior to the issuance of the policy
dated 25/02/1994. The Tribunal in the opinion of this Court did not
commit any error while recording the finding on issue Nos.4 (in
claim case Nos.34 & 35) and issue No.3 (in claim case Nos. 41 to
47), the same is, therefore, upheld.
The contention of learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company that the policy itself was canceled vide
Annexure A4A is noted to be rejected only on the ground that
subsequently after the issuance of the cover note, a policy itself
was issued on 25/02/1994. Therefore, the cancellation of the
policy on an earlier date which was issued on the subsequent date
on 25/02/1994 is of no consequence. It is further noticed that the
judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant
Deddappa & Ors vs. Branch Manager, National Insurnace Co. Ltd.,
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Seema Malhotra & Ors & Ishwar
Singh vs. Bheru Singh & Ors (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.
256/2001), New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Mohan Kanwar
& Anr (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.500/1995), Vela & Anr. vs. Babu
@ Badiya & Ors, (supra) are clearly distinguishable in the facts
and circumstances of the present case and are not applicable to
the facts involved in the instant matters.
The contention of the appellant that the driver of the bus,
Mangilal was holding only a licence to drive light motor vehicle and
since this fact was within the knowledge of the owner, it
constitutes a fundamental breach of conditions of the Insurance
(13 of 16) [CMA-676/2004]
Policy. It is noted in the finding recorded on issue No.6 by the
Tribunal that though driver Mangilal was having a licence to drive
light motor vehicle but it is nowhere mentioned or proved that the
same was within the knowledge of owner. Beside this, the
appellant-Insurance Company has not proved the fact of holding
the licence by Mangilal of the light motor vehicle only was within
the knowledge of the owner and despite that he allowed the
driver to ply the vehicle i.e. bus. Thus, no infirmity can be found
with the finding of the Tribunal recorded on Issue No.6 and the
direction to pay and recover was rightly made in furtherance of
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors, (supra).
In view of above, the argument of learned counsel for the
appellant Insurance Company regarding fundamental breach of
the policy does not hold any substance, therefore, the same is
rejected. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal recorded on Issue No.6
is upheld more particularly in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ram Babu Tiwari vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd, (supra) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Swaran Singh & Ors, (supra)
At this stage, learned counsel for the parties have submitted
a joint calculation for recomputation of the award in the present
case and the same is reproduced as under :-
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.676/2004 :
Death of 1 year old children = Rs.2,50,000/-
(in the light of RALSA Guildelines)
Less : Amount already awarded by Tribunal=Rs.85,000/-
----------------
Enhanced amount Rs. 1,65,000/-
=========
(14 of 16) [CMA-676/2004]
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.494/2004 :
For future 40% of Rs.1500/- Rs. 600/-
prospects :- (Income of
deceased)
Rs. 1500/-+ Rs. 600/- Rs. 2,100/-
Amount to be deducted as Rs. 2,100/- / 1/3=
spent on himself. Rs. 700/-
Dependence Amount Rs. 2,100 - Rs. 700=
Rs. 1,400/-
The age of deceased was 22 years, therefore, a multiplier of 18
will be applied.
(I) Compensation due to 1,400 x12x 18 Rs. 3,02,400/-
death
(II) For the Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
(III) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
(IV) Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000
+ 10%
= Rs. 7,000/-
Total Rs. 3,79,400/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 2,05,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs. 1,74,400/-
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.675/2004 :
For future 40% of Rs.1500/- Rs. 600/-
prospects :- (Income of
deceased)
Rs. 1500/-+ Rs. 600/- Rs. 2,100/-
Amount to be deducted as Rs. 2,100/- / 1/2=
spent on himself. Rs. 1050/-
Dependence Amount Rs. 2,100 - Rs. 1,050=
Rs. 1,050/-
The age of deceased was 25 years, therefore, a multiplier of 18
will be applied.
(15 of 16) [CMA-676/2004]
(I) Compensation due to 1,050 x12x 18 Rs. 2,26,800/-
death
(II) For the Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
(III) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
(IV) Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000
+ 10%
= Rs. 7,000/-
Total Rs. 3,03,800/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,45,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs. 1,58,800/-
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.706/2004 :
For future 25% of Rs.1500/- Rs. 375/-
prospects :- (Income of
deceased)
Rs. 1500/-+ Rs. 375/- Rs. 1,875/-
Amount to be deducted as Rs. 1,875/- / 1/4=
spent on himself. Rs. 469/-
Dependence Amount Rs. 1,875 - Rs. 469=
Rs. 1,406/-
The age of deceased was 40 years, therefore, a multiplier of 14
will be applied.
(I) Compensation due to 1,406 x12x 14 Rs. 2,36,208/-
death
(II) For the Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
(III) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
(IV) Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000
+ 10%
= Rs. 7,000/-
Total Rs. 3,13,208/-
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,80,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs. 1,33,208/-
(16 of 16) [CMA-676/2004]
Resultantly, the appeals of the Insurance Company are
dismissed and the appeals filed by the claimants/respondents are
partly allowed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the
enhanced amount of Rs.1,65,000/- in Civil Misc. Appeal
No.676/2004, Rs.1,74,400/- in Civil Misc. Appeal No.494/2004,
Rs.1,58,800/- in Civil Misc. Appeal No.675/2004 & Rs.1,33,208/-
in Civil Misc. Appeal No.706/2004 respectively in addition to the
amount already awarded by learned Tribunal vide its judgment
dated 21/12/2002. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @
6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petitions till the
same is actually paid.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
138 to 147-SanjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
