U.I.Ins.Co.Ltd vs Smt.Anita And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8414 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1332/2013

United India Insurance Company Limited, Mandiya Road, Pali through its Legally Constituted Authority, Divisional Office, 12-D Resdiency Road, Jodhpur.

----Appellant Versus

1. Smt. Anita Gurjar W/o Late Shri Jagdish Mawai.

2. Smt. Kamala Devi W/o Late Shri Devaram Gurjar.

3. Mst. Kamini d/O Late Shri Jagdish Gurjar.

4. Mst. Nisha D/o Late Sh. Jagdish Gurjar (Minor).

5. Prashant Gurjar S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Gurjar (Minor).

6. Mst. Manisha D/o Late Sh. Jagdish Gurjar (Minor).

Minors are represented though their natural guardian mother Smt. Anita Gurjar.

All by caste Gurjar, R/o Tehsil & Village Pindwara, Dist. Sirohi, presently residing at Gali No. 5, Tankariya, Sirohi.

----Respondents/Claimants

7. Gurupal Singh S/o Shri Sawaran Singh Sikh, R/o Village Karjampur, Tehsil Batala, P.S. Dhuman, District Gurdaspur, Punjab (Driver)

8. Sarabjeet Singh S/o Shri Darshan Singh Sikh, resident of G.T. Road, Bombay Batala, District Gurdaspur. (Owner)

----Respondents/Non-Claimants

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

26/03/2021

At the risk and cost of learned counsel for the appellant, the

service of notice upon respondent Nos. 7 and 8 is dispensed with.

Shri Mahavir Bishnoi, learned counsel appears for

respondents-claimants Nos. 1 to 6, therefore, service is complete.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

matter is being heard and disposed of finally.

(2 of 5) [CMA-1332/2013]

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and award dated 27.02.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Sirohi in Claim Case No. 167/11, whereby learned

Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 16,80,920/- in favour of the

respondents-claimants as compensation on account of the death

of Jagdish Mawai in the accident which occurred on 12.08.2011.

Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the

evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties,

decided the claim petition of the respondents-claimants.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company

vehemently argued that the findings of the Tribunal recorded on

Issue No.3 are incorrect. He submits that the salary certificate

issued by the employer of the deceased Jagdish (Ex.13) does not

disclose any deductions made by the employer. He further submits

that the person who issued the salary certificate, was not

examined by the Tribunal to prove the veracity of the said

document (Ex.13) and, therefore, the salary certificate (Ex.13)

could not be the conclusive proof of the income of the deceased.

Learned counsel further submits that even the documents relating

to the payment of income tax on the salary received by the

deceased was not tendered in evidence. He submits that in the

strict sense of proving the document in evidence, the Tribunal was

required to take into consideration the relevant factors and the

same being absent in the present case, the Tribunal committed an

error in considering Ex.13 as the salary certificate of the deceased

and thereby assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.10,067/-

per month.

Learned counsel also submits that while computing the

award towards the loss of future prospects, 30% of the income

(3 of 5) [CMA-1332/2013]

was added, whereas admittedly, the age of the deceased was 41

years at the time of accident, therefore, as per the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

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

25% income is required to be added towards the loss of future

prospects.

In view of the submission made above, learned counsel for

the appellant-Insurance Company thus, prays that the findings

recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.3 are required to be quashed

and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants

submits that not giving the details of deduction in Ex.13 was not

the fault of the claimants. He further submits that the fact of the

deceased being employed in the Wolkem India Limited, Pindwara

was proved by the evidence of A.W.1 Anita Gurjar and A.W.2

Mukesh Kumar. He submits that both the witnesses were not cross

examined by the appellant-Insurance Company and, therefore, the

testimony of A.W.1 Anita Gurjar and A.W.2 Mukesh Kumar should

be believed in this case. Learned counsel submits that no evidence

contrary to the fact that the deceased was not employed in the

Wolkem India Limited, Pindwara and was not earning the salary as

per Ex.13 was brought on record by the Insurance Company

before the Tribunal. Therefore, no wrong was committed by the

Tribunal while taking into consideration Ex.13, the salary

certificate showing the income of Rs.10,067/- per month as the

salary of the deceased.

However, learned counsel is not in a position to controvert

the fact that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was

41 years and, therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble

(4 of 5) [CMA-1332/2013]

Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs.

Pranay Sethi (supra), only 25% income is required to be added

instead of 30% while considering the loss of future prospects.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the judgment dated 27.02.2013 as well as the other

relevant record of the case.

So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant that the salary certificate of the deceased (Ex.13) does

not disclose the amount of deductions made by the company is

concerned, no fault can be found on the part of the claimants and,

therefore, only on this ground, the veracity of Ex.13 cannot be

doubted. The certificate was issued under the signatures and

stamp of the appropriate authority of the company in which the

deceased was working and no evidence was brought on record

showing contrary to the fact that the deceased was not working in

the Wolkem India Limited, Pindwara and was not earning the

income/salary of Rs.10,067/- per month. Not only this, the cross

examination of the witnesses produced by the claimants in

support of their claim petition i.e. A.W.1 Anita Gurjar and A.W.2

Mukesh Kumar was not done. Thus, the claimants proved beyond

doubt that the deceased was working in the Wolkem India Limited,

Pindwara and was earning an amount of Rs.10,067/- per month as

projected in the income/salary certificate issued by the competent

authority of the company (Ex.13). Thus, the finding of the Tribunal

on Issue No.3 with respect to the income of the deceased, is

upheld.

As far as the addition of loss of future prospects to the

extent of 30% is concerned, since it is an admitted fact that at the

time of accident, the deceased was 41 years of age and,

(5 of 5) [CMA-1332/2013]

therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi (supra),

the loss of income to the extent of 25% is required to be taken

into consideration while computing the compensation in the

present case.

Thus, the amount towards the loss of future prospects is

reduced from 30% to 25% and the amount of Rs.3,80,520/- is

required to be reduced to Rs. 3,17,100/-.

Resultantly, an amount of Rs.63,420/- is reduced from the

total amount of compensation i.e. Rs.16,80,920/-. The amount of

compensation is now modified as Rs.16,17,500/- instead of

16,80,920/- as ordered by the Tribunal in its judgment and award

dated 27.03.2013.

The appeal is, therefore, disposed of in the above terms.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

54-/VivekM/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)