Rajasthan High Court

Universal Sompo Gen Insurance Co ... vs Smt Dropati Devi And Others on 23 February, 2022

Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4803/2016

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Through
Manager, Registered Office, 201-208, Crystal Plaza, In front of
Infinity Mall, Link Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai, (Maharashtra)
having its Corporate Office, EL-94, TTC Industrial Area, MIDC,
Mahape, Navi Mumbai, Through Legal Manager.
                                        ----Appellant/Insurance Company
                                    Versus
1. Smt Dropati Devi W/o Late Shri Natthi Lal, aged 49 years
2. Nawal Singh S/o Late Natthi Lal, aged 28 years
3. Rajesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Natthi Lal, aged 20 years
4. Chandrabhan S/o Late Shir Natthi Lal, aged 16 years, minor
through natural guardian mother Smt. Dropati Devi,
All R/o Hinoti Chowki, Sub-Tehsil Mania, Tehsil and Distt.
Dholpur, Raj.
                                               ------Claimants/Respondents

5. Surendra Kumar Bajaj S/o Shri Laxmandas Bajaj, R/o Ward No. 7, Punjabi Colony, Gadarpur, Distt. Udaisingh Nagar (Uttranchal), Uttrakhand

----Non-Claimant/Respondent/Driver/Owner

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ritesh Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg Mr. Sanjay Verma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Judgment

23/02/2022

The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company

aggrieved with the judgment and award dated 21.06.2016 passed

by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur (Raj.) (for

short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 343/2015, whereby the

(2 of 6) [CMA-4803/2016]

Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,24,000/- along with interest

@ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition in

favour of the claimants-respondents on account of death of

Summera in an accident occurred in 27.07.2010.

The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the

evidence available on record and hearing counsel for the parties,

decided the claim petition of the claimants-respondents.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award,

appellant - Insurance Company has submitted the instant appeal,

inter alia, on various grounds.

Firstly, counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company

submitted that the claimants-respondents are not dependents of

the deceased, the claimant-respondent No. 1 is sister-in-law

(Bhabhi) of the deceased and claimants-respondents No. 2 to 4

are nephews of the deceased, hence, they are not entitled to claim

any amount of compensation.

Secondly, counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company

submitted that the deceased was unmarried, hence, the deduction

of 1/2 should have been applied while passing the impugned

award, but the Tribunal has erred in applying the deduction of 1/4.

Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further

submitted that as per the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company

Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in AIR (2017) 16 SCC

680, the Tribunal has erred in applying 50 per cent of the

assessed income towards future prospects. While as per the

judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount towards future

prospects should have been considered as 40 per cent.

                                          (3 of 6)                   [CMA-4803/2016]



     Counsel   for    the      appellant-Insurance               Company   further

submitted that under the conventional head an exorbitant amount

of Rs. 1,60,000/- has been awarded and lastly counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company argued that the rate of interest @

9% is also exorbitant.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-

respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company and submitted that as per the

judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs.

Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr., reported in AIR 1987 SC

(6) 1690, "In India the family consists brothers, sisters, brother's

children sometimes foster children live together and they are

treated as dependents upon the bread-winner of the family and if

the bread-winner is expired on account of motor vehicle accident,

then they are entitled to get compensation and there is no

justification to deny them compensation." Learned counsel for the

claimants-respondents further submitted that the instant case is a

peculiar case in which husband and in-laws of the claimant-

respondent have already expired and the deceased was the only

bread-winner of the family upon whom the entire family was

dependent.

In support of his contentions, counsel for the respondents-

claimants further placed reliance upon the recent judgment

delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Ors., reported

in AIR 2020 SC 434, in that matter also other family members

of the deceased were treated as dependents to get compensation.

(4 of 6) [CMA-4803/2016]

Counsel for the respondents-claimants further submitted that

the Tribunal has not committed any illegality while passing the

award under various heads, hence, the impugned award does not

warrant any interference of this Court.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal as well as

the record of the case.

So far as the first objection taken by the appellant-Insurance

Company that the claimants-respondents are not dependents of

the deceased is not tenable in the eye of law and the same is

contrary to the analogy which has already decided by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport

Corporation (supra) and in the case of Birender Singh (supra).

Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where

there was no other earning male member in the family, as the

husband and the father-in-law of the claimant-respondent were

expired and the entire family of the claimants-respondents was

fully dependent upon the deceased who was the sole bread-winner

of the entire family.

So far as the second contention raised by the counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company with regard to deduction of 1/4 is

concerned, this Court finds no illegality in the order passed by the

Tribunal, as the Tribunal has considered the entire peculiar facts

and circumstances of the case and came to the right conclusion.

Counsel for the claimants-respondents submitted that under the

conventional head, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in

awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/-. Recently the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors.,

(5 of 6) [CMA-4803/2016]

reported in 2018 (MACT) SC 273 has granted compensation of

Rs. 40,000/- to each of the claimants towards the loss of

consortium. Counsel for the respondents-claimants is fair enough

in considering the fact that as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi

(supra), the claimants are entitled to get 40 per cent for future

prospects towards loss of income.

After considering the arguments raised by both the parties,

the amount of compensation awarded is re-computed as under:

Annual income Rs. 4,000 x12 = Rs.48,000/- per annum

48,000 X 16 = Rs.7,68,000/-

Less 1/4 deduction Rs.7,68,000 - Rs. 1,92,000 = Rs. 5,76,000/-

Add 40 per cent towards Rs. 5,76,000 + Rs. 2,30,400 future prospects = Rs. 8,06,400/-

Add    general       expenses Rs. 1,60,000/-
(conventional)
Total compensation                Rs. 9,66,400/-
awardable
Less re-computed award            Rs. 10,24,000 - Rs.9,66,400
amount                            = Rs.57,600/-
Decreased amount of               Rs. 57,600/-
compensation

Thus, the claimants-respondents would be entitled to get

total amount of compensation of Rs. 9,66,400/-. In view of the

discussions made hereinabove, the appeal filed by the appellant-

Insurance Company is disposed with the modification as indicated

above. However, the interest awarded by the Tribunal to the tune

of 9 per cent per annum is reduced to 6 per cent per annum from

the date of filing of the claim petition.

The Tribunal is directed to disburse the modified amount of

award to the claimants-respondents.

All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(6 of 6) [CMA-4803/2016]

Registry is directed to send back the record of the Tribunal