Shabana Bano W/O Late Ahmad Sayeed vs Tanveer Pathan S/O Shri Saleem ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4659 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

         S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6246/2019

1.     Shabana Bano W/o Late Ahmad Sayeed, Aged About 31
       Years, Resident Of Shivraj Nagar Hindauli District Bundi
       (Raj)
2.     Danish Ansari S/o Late Ahmad Sayeed, Aged About 13
       Years, Minor Through Guardian Mother Shabana Bano,
       Resident Of Shivraj Nagar Hindauli District Bundi (Raj)
3.     Sonam Ansari D/o Late Ahmad Sayeed, Aged About 12
       Years, Minor Through Guardian Mother Shabana Bano,
       Resident Of Shivraj Nagar Hindauli District Bundi (Raj)
4.     Hazi Abdul Hakeem S/o Hazi Ramjani Late Mohammad
       Miya, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Shivraj Nagar
       Hindauli District Bundi (Raj)
5.     Hameedan Bano W/o Shri Hazi Abdul Hakeem, Resident
       Of Shivraj Nagar Hindauli District Bundi (Raj)
                                                                  ----Appellants
                                  Versus
1.     Tanveer Pathan S/o Shri Saleem Pathan,                      Resident Of
       Opposite Balaji Ke Mandir, Baheer Police Station Kotwali
       District Tonk Rajasthan
2.     Chandra Shekhar Sharma S/o Shri Dhannalal Sharma,
       Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Ashok Chowk, Purani
       Tonk At Present Resident Of Housing Board, Tonk Raj
3.     The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Tonk Rajasthan
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)        :     Mr. Rajkumar Suthar



       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

                               Judgment

08/07/2022

     Instant   appeal   has     been       preferred       by    the   claimants-

appellants assailing the impugned judgment and award dated

24.09.2019 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims

(2 of 3) [CMA-6246/2019]

Tribunal, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MAC

Case No.23/2016 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-

appellants has been allowed and respondent-Insurance Company

has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.11,55,940/- with

interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum in favour of

appellants-claimants.

Counsel for the appellant submits that the dependents were

five in number and as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay

Sethi and Ors: (2017) 16 SCC 680, the personal expenses of

the deceased should have been deducted as 1/5th, but without

any basis, the Tribunal deducted 1/4th amount towards personal

expenses. He further submits that under the head of loss of future

prospects, the Tribunal has awarded only 40%, while 50% future

prospects should have been awarded by the Tribunal.

I have heard counsel for the appellants and gone through the

judgment and perused the materials available on record.

In the present case, it is not in dispute that the total number

of dependents were five in number. Perusal of the impugned

judgment indicates that under the head of loss of future

prospects, 40 per cent amount has been awarded by the Tribunal.

Perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Pranay Sethi (supra) clearly indicates that, if number of

dependents are 2 to 3, then there would be deduction of 1/3rd, if

the total number of dependents are 4 to 6, then there would be

deduction of 1/4th and if the total number of dependents are more

than 6, then there would be deduction of 1/6th towards personal

expenses.

(3 of 3) [CMA-6246/2019]

Here in the instant case, the Tribunal deducted 1/4th amount

towards personal expenses of deceased, looking to the number of

dependents in the light of the judgment passed in the case of

Pranay Sethi (supra). Hence, the Tribunal has not committed

any illegality in deducting 1/4th amount towards personal

expenses of the deceased.

Perusal of the judgment also reveals that the deceased was

not a Government Servant, he was a self employed person and as

per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay

Sethi (supra) the appellants-claimants were entitled to get 40%

amount towards future prospect and the Tribunal has also not

committed any error in granting 40% amount towards future

prospects.

Thus, quantum of compensation as assessed and awarded by

the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable and the same

cannot be treated as inadequate.

Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings

recorded by the Tribunal.

Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant is found to

be devoid of any merit and accordingly stands dismissed.

All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

HEENA GANDHI /52

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)