Rajasthan High Court
Susheela Kanwar And Others vs Lakhpat And Others on 8 July, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3995/2014
1. Susheela Kanwar wife of Late Shri Samundra Singh aged 47
years.
2. Vishnu Singh Son of Late Shri Samundra Singh aged 29 years.
3. Mahendra Singh Son of Late Shri Samundra Singh aged 28
years.
4. Shambhu Singh Son of Late Shri Samundra Singh aged 27
years.
5. Bhagwan Singh Son of Late Shri Samundra Singh aged 25
years.
6. Satveer Singh Son of Late Shri Samundra Singh aged 20
years.
All residents of village Deori Thala, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk
(Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Lakhpat Son of Shri Ram Chandra alias Nanagram, resident of
village Ramdi, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
(DRIVER)
2. Parsuram Meena son of Shri Ramkunwar Meena, resident of
Ranipura, P.S. Nagarfort, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.)
(OWNER)
3. ThE Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Limited, Regional
Office, 8, Katewa Bhawan, Opposite Ganpati Plaja, M.I. Road,
Jaipur through Regional Manager.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riresh Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
08/07/2022
(2 of 4) [CMA-3995/2014]
Matter comes upon an interim application No.12506/2014
filed by the claimants -applicants under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
The application stands allowed for the reasons stated therein
and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
With the consent of the parties, final arguments heard at this
stage.
The instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants-
appellants against the impugned judgment and award dated
01.07.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in MAC case No.464/2011 by
which an amount of Rs.11,62,017/- has been awarded as
compensation on account of death of Samundar Singh in the
accident which occurred on 27.08.2011.
Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the
evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties,
decided the claim petition of the claimant-appellants and awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.11,62,017/- in favour of the
claimant-appellants under various heads.
Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that
the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3rd amount
towards personal expenses of the deceased by not treating the
appellants No.2 to 6 as dependent upon the deceased.
Learned counsel further submits that no amount towards
future prospects has been awarded and a meager amount towards
the conventional heads has been awarded. Hence, the impugned
judgment and award needs suitable enhancement by this Court in
the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
(3 of 4) [CMA-3995/2014]
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported
in AIR 2017 SC 5157.
Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim
petition of the claimants-appellants has correctly taken into
consideration all the factors while calculating the award on the
anvil of the evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment
dated 01.07.2014 does not call for any inference by this Court.
Counsel for the respondent further submits that no evidence
was produced on record to prove that the claimants-appellants
No.2 to 6 were dependent on the deceased. Hence, no illegality
has been committed by the Tribunal while deducting 1/3rd amount
towards personal expenses of the deceased.
Learned counsel, however, is not in a position to controvert
the submissions made by the counsel for the claimants-appellants
with respect to recomputation of award in the present case in the
light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (Supra).
I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone
through the impugned judgment dated 01.07.2014 as well as the
other relevant documents available on record.
Admittedly, no such evidence was produced on record of the
Tribunal to show that the appellants No.2 to 6 were dependents
upon the deceased. Hence, no illegality has been committed by
the Tribunal by deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal
expenses of the deceased.
So far as the argument raised by the counsel for the
claimants-appellants with respect to not granting of future
prospects and a meager amount towards the conventional heads
(4 of 4) [CMA-3995/2014]
is concerned, the claimants-appellants are entitled to get the
same in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
Thus, the amount to the extent of 10% is required to be
added towards future prospects. Hence, the award is re-computed
as under:
Annual income Rs. 1,56,820/-
Less 1/3 towards personal Rs.1,56,820/- 52,273/-Rs.1,04,547/- =
expenses
Add 10 % towards future Rs. 1,04,547 /- + 10,454/-
prospects = 1,15,001/-
Rs. 1,15,001/- X 11 = 12,65,018/-
Compensation towards loss Rs. 12,65,018 /-
of income
Add towards conventional Rs. 70,000/-
head (under conventional heads Rs. 12,000
has already been awarded by the
Tribunal)
Total compensation Rs. 13,35,018/-
awardable
Less amount awarded by the Rs. 13,35,018/- - Rs.11,62,017/-
Tribunal Rs. 1,73,001/-
Enhanced amount of Rs. 1,73,001/-
compensation
Thus, an amount of Rs. 1,73,001/- is enhanced in the
present case and the respondent-Insurance Company is directed
to pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,73,001/- in addition to the
amount already awarded by the Tribunal within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The
enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing
of the claim petition till the actual payment is made.
The appeal stands disposed off in the above terms.
All pending application(s) stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
pcg/11
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
