Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

United India Ins. Co. Ltd vs Smt. Phool Kanwar And Ors on 13 December, 2022

Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 942/2016

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office, Near Alok Cinema, Churu, through its authorized signatory, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, 74-A, Bhati N-Plaza, Main Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus 1/1 Smt. Phool Kanwar W/o Late Shri Nemu Singh, Age 39 years, B/c Rajput, R/o Village Ladhasar, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu.

1/2 Dhermendra S/o Late Shri Nemu Singh, Age 20 years, B/c Rajput, R/o Village Ladhasar, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu.

1/3 Mohan Singh S/o Late Shri Nemu Singh, Age 18 years, B/c Rajput, R/o Village Ladhasar, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu.

1/4 Miss Puja D/o Late Shri Nemu Singh, Age 15 years, B/c Rajput, R/o Village Ladhasar, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Minor through natural guardian Mother, Resp. No.1 Smt. Phool Kanwar)

2. Banwari Lal S/o Ishar Ram B/c Jat, R/o Ladhasar, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu.

3. Daluram S/o Aduram, B/c Jat, R/o Golsar, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Bachhawat Mr. M. P. Goswami For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment

(2 of 8) [CMA-942/2016]

Date of Judgment : 13/12/2022

01- /kkjk 173 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e] 1988 ds rgr ;g vihy vihykFkhZ chek dEiuh us fo}ku U;k;k/kh'k] eksVj nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k] jrux<+] pw: ds }kjk fofo/k nhokuh ¼Dyse½ izdj.k la[;k [email protected] Qwydaoj vkfn cuke Mkywjke vkfn esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 16-12-2015 ds fo#) izLrqr dh gS] ftlds }kjk fo}ku vf/kdj.k us ;kph usew flag ¼e`rd½ ds nq?kZVuk esa 'kjhj ij dkfjr pksVksa ds fy, izfrdj ds :i esa ;kphx.k dks] tks fd e`rd usew flag ds fof/kd mRrjkf/kdkjh gSa] dks dqy 1]68][email protected]&#i;s vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ls 3 ls la;qDr ,oa i`Fkd&i`Fkd :i ls fnyokus dk vkns'k fn;k] ftlls O;fFkr gksdj ;g vihy izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 02- eSaus ;ksX; vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ chek dEiuh dh cgl lquh] vk{ksfir fu.kZ; ,oa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA 03- ;ksX; vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ chek dEiuh us ;g rdZ fn;k fd izkFkhZ usew flag us nq?kZVuk ls vius 'kjhj esa dkfjr pksVksa ds fy, Dyse izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 31-08-2010 dks izLrqr fd;kA Dyse izkFkZuk&i= dh fopkjk/khurk ds nkSjku usew flag dh e`R;q gks xbZ] ftl ij mlds fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa dks i{kdkj ds :i esa la;ksftr djus dh vuqefr nh xbZA iapkV ikfjr gksus ls iwoZ gh izkFkhZ usew flag dh e`R;q gks xbZA ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izkFkhZ usew flag dks LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk dh en esa vk; dh gkfu ds rkSj ij 1]34][email protected]&#i;s] ekufld larki] 'kkjhfjd d"V&ihM+k vkfn dh en esa 20][email protected]&#i;s fnyok, x, gSa] os mfpr ,oa fof/klEer ugha gSaA izkFkhZ vkgr dh] Dyse izkFkZuk&i= dh fopkjk/khurk ds nkSjku e`R;q gks xbZ] blfy, izkFkhZ ds fof/kd mRrjkf/kdkjh dsoy laifRr dh gkfu dh lhek rd gh jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk] ekufld larki] 'kkjhfjd d"V&ihM+k vkfn ds en esa e`rd izkFkhZ ds fof/kd mRrjkf/kdkjh dksbZ jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSa] blfy, vk{ksfir vkns'k vikLr fd, tkus dk fuosnu

(3 of 8) [CMA-942/2016]

fd;kA mUgksaus vius bu rdksZa dh iqf"V esa fuEufyf[kr uthjsa is'k dh] ftudk eSaus voyksdu fd;k %&

1. Naseeban and another Versus Surendra Pal and others; 1996 ACJ 818

2. Smt. Rani Versus Nazeer & Another; SB. Civil Misc.

Appeal No. 859/97, Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) Decided on 7.11.2005

04- eSaus mi;qZDr rdksZa ij fopkj fd;kA vk{ksfir fu.kZ; ls ;g Lohd`r fLFkfr gS fd izkFkhZ usew flag us nq?kZVuk esa vius 'kjhj ij dkfjr pksVksa ds fy, fnukad 31-08-2010 dks Dyse izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr fd;kA Dyse izkFkZuk&i= dh fopkjk/khurk ds nkSjku izkFkhZ usew flag dh e`R;q gks tkus ds dkj.k mlds fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa dks izkFkhZ la[;k [email protected] ls [email protected] rd i{kdkj ds :i esa la;ksftr djus dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA vk{ksfir fu.kZ; ds }kjk izkFkhZx.k dks fuEuizdkj ls izfrdj jkf'k lanRr fd, tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k %& v½ LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk ds dkj.k vk; dh gkfu & 1]34][email protected]& c½ jktdh; vLirky jrux<+ esa HkrhZ jgus dh vof/k esa ikSf"Vd vkgkj vkfn dh en esa & 4][email protected]& l½ esfMdy fcy dh jkf'k & 10][email protected]& n½ izkFkhZ dks ekufld larki] 'kkjhfjd d"V&ihM+k vkfn dh en esa & 20][email protected]&

05- vc fopkj.kh; iz'u ;g mRiUu gksrk gS fd vkgr usew flag dh Dyse izkFkZuk&i= dh fopkjk/khurk ds nkSjku e`R;q gks tkus ij mlds fof/kd izfrfuf/k fdl en esa jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Kahlon (Deceased) through his Legal

Representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and Ors.: AIR

(4 of 8) [CMA-942/2016]

2021 SC 3913 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 16-08-2021 ds iSjk la[;k 11] 12

o 13 esa fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %&

"11. In Maimuna Begum (supra) the defence under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 on the old English Common Law maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona" was rejected opining that it would be unjust to non-suit the heirs on that ground.

12. In Venkatesan (supra), the injured claimant preferred an appeal dissatisfied, but was deceased during the pendency of the appeal. Compensation came to be awarded under the Act for loss of estate keeping in mind the nature of the injuries, the treatment, the expenditure incurred and loss of income.

13. In Surpal Singh (supra), Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J. (as he then was), observed that the Act was a social welfare legislation providing for compensation by award to people who sustain bodily injuries or get killed. The grant of compensation had to be expeditious as procedural technicalities could not be allowed to defeat the just purpose of the act. The Courts in construing social welfare legislations had to adopt a beneficial rule of construction which fulfils the policy of the legislation favorable to those in whose interest the Act has been passed. Judicial discipline demanded that the words of a remedial statutes be construed so far as they reasonably admit so as to secure that relief contemplated by the statute and it shall not be denied to the class intended to be relieved. Rejecting the maxim of "actio personalis moritur cum persona" on the premise that it was an injury done to the person

(5 of 8) [CMA-942/2016]

and the claim abated with his demise it was observed:

11. The question as to whether injury was personal or otherwise is of no significance so far as the wrong doer is concerned and he is obliged to make good the loss sustained by the injured. Legal heirs and legal representatives would have also suffered considerable mental pain and agony due to the accident caused to their kith and kin. Possibly they might have looked after their dear ones in different circumstances, which cannot be measurable in monetary terms. We are therefore in full agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra) that even after death of the injured, the claim petition does not abate and right to sue survives to his heirs and legal representatives."

06- blh izdkj ls mDr uthj ds iSjk la[;k 18] 20 o 21 esa fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %&

"18. The Tribunal, on technicalities rejected his claim for salary, medical expenses and percentage of disability and granted a measly compensation of Rupees one lakh only by a cryptic order. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while the claim for personal injuries may not have survived after the death of the injured unrelated to the accident or injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, but the claims for loss of estate caused was available to and could be pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased in the appeal.

(6 of 8) [CMA-942/2016]

20. We see no reason to deviate from the consistent judicial view taken by more than one High Court that loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor's fee, etc. including income and future prospects which would have caused reasonable accretion to the estate but for the sudden expenditure which had to be met from and depleted the estate of the injured, subsequently deceased.

21. However, the compensation under the head pain and suffering being personal injuries is held to be unsustainable and is disallowed. The High Court has not awarded anything towards medical expenses despite hospitalisation for six months being an admitted fact. We therefore award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Hence, the reassessed total compensation would be Rs.28,42,175/-, calculated hereunder:

Sr.             Heads                            Calculations
No.
1.    Annual Salary               Rs. 25084*12= Rs. 3,01,008/-
                                  After deducting 25%
                                  75% of the annual salary will be = Rs.
                                  2,25,756/-
2.    15% Future Prospects        15% of 2,25,756= Rs. 33,863.4

Rs. 2,25,756+33,863= Rs. 2,59,619/-

3. Applying multiplier of 11 Rs. 2,59,619*11= Rs. 28,55,809/-

4. 10% of the income tax Rs. 2,25,756 - 1,50,000= 75,756, deducted for 15 years 10% of 75,756 = 7575.60 For 15 years = 7575.6*15 = Rs.

1,13,634/-

5.    Medical Expenses            Rs. 1,00,000/-
6.    Attendant Charges           Rs. 1,00,000/-
7.    Grand Total                 29,42,175/-
8.    Compensation already        Rs.1,00,000/
      awarded by the Tribunal
      and paid
9.    Net Total (7)-(8)           Rs.28,42,175/-
                                                                           "





                                       (7 of 8)                 [CMA-942/2016]



07-           bl izdkj mi;qZDr uthj esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ds ifjizs{; esa

izkFkhZ usew flag ¼e`rd½ ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k] dsoy usew flag dks ekufld larki] 'kkjhfjd d"V&ihM+k vkfn dh en esa tks 20][email protected]&#i;s dh jkf'k fnyokbZ xbZ gS] og izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSa] 'ks"k mi;qZDr of.kZr ¼gLrxr fu.kZ; dk iSjk la[;k 4½ en ^v*] ^c* o ^l* Øe'k% LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk ds dkj.k vk; dh gkfu] jktdh; vLirky jrux<+ esa HkrhZ jgus dh vof/k esa ikSf"Vd vkgkj vkfn dh en esa ,oa esfMdy fcy dh jkf'k 1]34][email protected]&#i;s] 4][email protected]&#i;s o 10][email protected]&#i;s] dqy 1]48][email protected]&#i;s izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa rFkk en ^n* esa of.kZr jkf'k ds laca/k esa izkFkhZx.k dk Dyse Survive ugha djrk gSA 08- dqy feykdj mi;qZDr foospu ds ifj.kkeLo:i vf/kdj.k us vk{ksfir fu.kZ; ds }kjk izkFkhZx.k dks] e`rd usew flag dks tks jkf'k ekufld larki] 'kkjhfjd d"V&ihM+k vkfn dh en esa 20][email protected]&#i;s fnyokbZ gS] og mfpr ,oa fof/klEer ugha gS vkSj en ^n* esa of.kZr jkf'k ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ usew flag dh e`R;q gks tkus ds dkj.k Dyse Survive ugha djrk gSA 09- ifj.kker% vihykFkhZ vizkFkhZ chek dEiuh dh ;g vihy vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku U;k;k/kh'k] eksVj nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k] jrux<+] pw: ds }kjk fofo/k nhokuh ¼Dyse½ izdj.k la[;k [email protected] Qwydaoj vkfn cuke Mkywjke vkfn esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 16-12-2015 dks la'kksf/kr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd izR;FkhZ izkFkhZx.k dsoy en ^v*] ^c* o ^l* esa LFkkbZ fu;ksZX;rk ds dkj.k vk; dh gkfu] jktdh; vLirky jrux<+ esa HkrhZ jgus dh vof/k esa ikSf"Vd vkgkj vkfn dh en esa ,oa esfMdy fcy dh jkf'k] Øe'k% 1]34][email protected]&#i;s] 4][email protected]&#i;s o 10][email protected]&#i;s] dqy 1]48][email protected]&#i;s dh jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA

(8 of 8) [CMA-942/2016]

10- bl vkns'k dh izfr lfgr fo}ku vf/kdj.k dk vfHkys[k 'kh?kz iszf"kr gksA

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 18-Rajendra/-

;g vkns'[email protected]; Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 348 (i) ds rgr Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk jkti= la[;k 1] fnuakd 2 tuojh 1999 ,oa jktLFkku jkti= fnukafdr 10-3-1971 ds rgr fgUnh Hkk"kk ds iz;ksx dkss izkf/kd`r fd, tkus ds ifj.kkeLo:i fgUnh Hkk"kk esa fy[kk;k x;kA