Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Durga Devi And Ors on 17 February, 2022

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1059/2017

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pal Road, Jodhpur.

----Appellant Versus

1. Smt. Durga Devi W/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal

2. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Bhura Mal, All By Caste Khatri, Resident Of 8/180 Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.

3. Babu Lal S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Resident Of House No. B-

29, Shramikpura, Masuria, Jodhpur. Driver Of Pickup No. Rj 19Ga-7252

4. M/s Rajan Amplifiers Through Proprietor Tara Panwar, Resident Of Plot No. 11, 9Th Pal Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. Registered Owner Of Pickup No. Rj 19Ga-7252

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1289/2017

1. Smt. Durga Devi S/o Kanhiya Lal Ji,

2. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Bhuramal, Both Are By Caste Khatri, R/o 8/180, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Babu Lal S/o Bhanwar Lal Ji, R/o House No. B-39, Sharmikpura, Mansuria, District Jodhpur. Driver

2. M/s Rajan Amplifiers, Through Proprietor Tara Panwar, R/o Plot No. - 11, 9Th Pal Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. Registered Owner

3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Office, 12Th D Pal Road, Near Goyal Hospital, Jodhpur. Insurer

----Respondents S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2673/2017 M/s Rajan Amplifier, Through Proprietor Tara Panwar W/o Rajan Panwar, Resident Of Plot No. 11, 9Th Pal Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. Owner Of Pickup No. Rj 19Ga-7252

----Appellant Versus

1. Smt. Durga Devi W/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal,

2. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Bhura Mal, All By Caste Khatri, Resident Of 8/180 Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.

3. Babu Lal S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Resident Of House No. B-

29, Shramikpura, Masuria, Jodhpur. Driver Of Pickup No. Rj 19Ga-7252

(2 of 7) [CMA-1059/2017]

4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd Through Its Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Pal Road, Jodhpur. Insurer Of Pickup No. Rj 19Ga-7252

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Kaushik for Insurance co. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Panwar for claimants Dr. A.A. Bhansali for Owner

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Judgment 17/02/2022

These three appeals arise out of the award dated 24.01.2017

passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur in

MACT Case No. 446/2012, by which the learned Judge of the

Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of claimant and awarded

a compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,80,344/- in favour of

claimants.

As all these appeals arise out of the common award and

relate to the same accident, they are, therefore, being disposed of

by this common judgment.

Succinctly stated, the fact of the case are that a claim

petition was filed by the claimants before the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur seeking compensation on account of

death of Rajesh Arora in the motor accident which took place on

04.12.2011. As per averments made in the claim petition, while

deceased Rajesh Arora alongwith his friend Vicky @ Vijay were

going on motor cycle, one Pick Up Vehicle No. RJ 19-GA- 7252

being driven rash and negligently hit the motor cycle due to which

Rajesh Arora fell down and sustained head injuries and died.

On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the learned

Tribunal framed three issues. In support of their case, the

(3 of 7) [CMA-1059/2017]

claimants got examined three witnesses and exhibited 13

documents.

The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties, vide its

judgment and award dated 24.01.2017 awarded a compensation

to the tune of Rs. 5,80,344/- along with interest at the rate of 9%

per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till

realization.

Against the judgment and award dated 24.01.2017, the

appellant-Insurance Company has filed the appeal being Civil Misc.

Appeal No. 1059/2017 whereby appellant Insurance has been held

liable for payment of compensation.

Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company while

challenging the findings of the Tribunal vehemently argued that

the claimants have not only failed to prove the negligence of the

offending vehicle but also involvement of the vehicle, thereofre,

the Insurance company has falsely been fastened with the liability.

It is further argued that the learned Tribunal has also committed

error in awarding awarding compensation while adding 50% in the

income and applying multiplier according to age. Learned Tribunal

has committed an error in assessing the income of deceased to be

Rs. 3,510/- per month despite the fact that there was no evidence

on record on the basis of which the income of the deceased could

be taken to be Rs. 3,510/- per month. It is further argued that

learned Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding 50% of

income by way of future prospects as the deceased was stated to

be unmarried and 31 years old alleged to be working as a

Supervisor whereas, the job was neither permanent nor stable,

therefore, future prospects should not have been awarded by the

Tribunal. Thus, the tribunal has awarded excessive compensation

(4 of 7) [CMA-1059/2017]

in an unreasonable manner. Further the rate of interest needs to

be fixed in consonance with the prevailing rate of Reserve Bank of

India and therefore, awarding interest at the rate of 9% per

annum is also excessive. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant-

Insurance Company may be allowed and the judgment and award

impugned qua them may be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants opposed the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant

Corporation and submitted that the Tribunal rightly recorded the

findings on all the issues and fastened the liability of paying

compensation on the appellants. It is argued that the appellants

in order to escape from the liability of payment of compensation

has created a false story of non-involvement of the vehicle.

Further, the claimants while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental

Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668

contended that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered

by the judgment of larger Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Mukund Dewangan (Supra) wherein, it has been held that

holder of license to drive Light Motor Vehicle is also authorized to

driver Light Transport Vehicle as the gross weight of the vehicle

involved in the accident is less than 7500 kg. Thus, the issue

involved in the present appeal is liable to be decided against the

Insurance company.

While arguing Civil Misc. Appeal No.1289/2017, counsel for

the claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded

compensation on the lower side while considering the deceased to

be unskilled labour and taking the income of deceased to be Rs.

3,510/- per month whereas, the deceased was a skilled labour and

(5 of 7) [CMA-1059/2017]

was earning a sum of atleast Rs. 4,030/- per month and therefore,

amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced by assessing

the income of deceased to be Rs. 4,030/- per month. The learned

Tribunal ought to have assessed the minimum wage of Rs. 4030/-

per month as provided by the State Government in the Minimum

Wages Act.

While arguing Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2673/2017, counsel for

the appellant owner M/s Rajan Amplifier argued that the accident

was caused due to negligence of the deceased and since the

vehicle was insured with the insurance company, the liability to

pay compensation is upon the insurance company.

I have considered the submissions on behalf of the counsel

for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment/award

dated 24.01.2017 as also the material available on record.

For appreciation of the arguments and a close scrutiny of the

evidence of the evidence shows that the vehicle driven by the

deceased was on correct side and the driver was driving the

offending vehicle rash and negligently and hit the deceased

whereas, there is no evidence to prove that the deceased was

negligent or was at fault. Thus, on a conjoint reading of the

documents and after appreciation of the evidence, I am of the

view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from

any infirmity. However, the amount of Rs. 3,510/- taken into

consideration by the Tribunal while deciding issue with regard to

income seems to be on the lower side. As per claimants, the

deceased was working as Supervisor in a contractor company,

thus, he is required to be treated as a skilled labour. Thus, the

finding of the Tribunal on issue with regard to income, future

(6 of 7) [CMA-1059/2017]

prospects is required to be interfered with by this Court and same

is liable to be enhanced.

The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- each under

the head of loss of love and affection to the parents of the

deceased, in the opinion of this Court, it has been awarded on a

lower side as at the time of accident the parents of the deceased

must have suffered a great shock and agony and should have

been awarded at least Rs. 40,000/- each to the claimants on this

count. The award of Rs. 25,000/- toward funeral expenses is also

on lower side and in the opinion of this Court at least Rs. 30,000/-

should have been awarded on this Court. It is held that the

claimants are entitled to Rs. 30,000/- towards funeral expenses.

In view of above, the re-computation of the award in the

present case is as under:-


Income of deceased = Amount      to                   be Future prospects =
Rs. 4030/-           deducted :                          2015 x 40% = Rs. 806
                     Rs. 4030/2 =
                     Rs. 2015/-                            Rs. 2015 + 806= Rs.
                                                           2821/-
2821 x 12 x 16 (multiplier)                                Rs. 5,41,632
            Loss of consortium                             Rs. 80,000/-
               Funeral expenses                            Rs.30,000/-
                      Total                                Rs. 6,51,632/-
      Amount already awarded by the Tribunal               Rs. 5,80,344/-
                Enhanced amount                            Rs. 71,288/-

In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the

Insurance company being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1059/2017 is

hereby dismissed and the appeal filed by the owner being Civil

Misc. Appeal No. 2673/2017 is hereby allowed in the light of

judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra).

The appeal preferred by the appellants-claimants is partly

(7 of 7) [CMA-1059/2017]

allowed. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay

the enhanced amount of Rs.71,288/- in favour of the appellants-

claimants in addition to the amount of compensation already

awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 24.01.2017. The

Insurance company has already paid 70% amount of