Rajasthan High Court

Smt Nana And Ors vs Jagtar Singh And Ors on 26 May, 2022

Bench: Anoop Kumar V.J.)

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 87/2001

1. Smt. Nana w/o Kailash Chandra, aged about 19 years.
2. Manoj S/o Lt. Sh. Kailash Chandra, aged 6 months, minor
through mother and natural guardian Smt. Nana
3. Sh. Kalyan Sahai s/o Sh. Narayan Lal, aged 40 years (Died)
4. Smt. Kamla Devi w/o Sh. Kalyan Sahai, aged 35 years.
5. Choti w/o Sh. Narayan Lal, aged 55 years (died)
6. Kalu Ram s/o Sh. Kalyan Sahai, aged 13 years.
7. Mahadev son of Sh. Kalyan Sahai, aged 10 years.
8 Ku. Indra d/o Sh. Kalyan Sahai, aged 14 years.
9. Radha d/o Sh. Kalyan Sahai, aged 8 years.
  All resident of Keria-ka-bas, (Bagru Tehsil Sanganer, District
Jaipur)
                                                   ----claimants/Appellants
                                  Versus
1. Tejendra Pal Singh son of Sh. Gurjit Singh, resident of
Chandrabhushanpura, Tehsil Dhanesar, District Kucheter (KKP),
Kurukshetra, Haryana.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office,
Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
                                               ----Respondent/defendants

Connected With S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 44/2001

1. Smt. Nana w/o Kailash Chandra, aged about 19 years.

2. Manoj S/o Lt. Sh. Kailash Chandra, aged 6 months, minor through mother and natural guardian Smt. Nana

3. Sh. Kalyan Sahai s/o Sh. Narayan Lal, aged 40 years (Died)

4. Smt. Kamla Devi w/o Sh. Kalyan Sahai, aged 35 years.

5. Choti w/o Sh. Narayan Lal, aged 55 years (died)

6. Kalu Ram s/o Sh. Kalyan Sahai, aged 13 years.

7. Mahadev son of Sh. Kalyan Sahai, aged 10 years. 8 Ku. Indra d/o Sh. Kalyan Sahai, aged 14 years.

9. Radha d/o Sh. Kalyan Sahai, aged 8 years. All resident of Keria-ka-bas, (Bagru Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur)

----Claiamants/Appellants Versus

(2 of 7) [CMA-87/2001]

1. Jagtar Singh son of Karnail Singh resident of H. No.270, Shastri Colony, Karnal, PS Karnal Haryana.

2. Tejendra Pal Singh son of Sh. Gurjit Singh, resident of Chandrabhushanpura, Tehsil Dhanesar, District Kucheter (KKP), Kurukshetra, Haryana.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

----Defendant/Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Bhargava for appellant in CMA No.87/2001 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni (for objector in cross-objections No.44/2001)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Judgment

26/05/2022

This appeal as well as cross objections arise out of a

common judgment, hence, the same are being decided together.

In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 87/2001

Instant appeal has been submitted by the claimants-

appellants against the impugned judgment 26.09.2000 passed by

the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District (for

short 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No.1743/92,

whereby compensation amounting to Rs.1,92,000/- (including

Rs.5,000/- towards destroying Bullock cart) has been awarded in

favour of the claimants-appellants.

Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submitted that

the accident was caused by vehicle i.e. Truck bearing No.HR-07-

9322 and the same was fully insured with the Insurance Company

bearing cover note No.456604 and under Policy Number

(3 of 7) [CMA-87/2001]

3132230102587, even then, the Tribunal erred in exonerating the

Insurance Company from its liability to make payment of

compensation to the claimants-appellants. He further submitted

that while assessing notional income of the deceased the

deduction towards personal expenses should not have been done,

as the same is contrary to the settled proposition of law and in

order to support his contentions, learned counsel has placed

reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Mukti

& anr. Vs. Sh. Happu Singh & Ors. reported in 2009(1) TAC

535. He further submitted that no future prospects have been

granted and even under the conventional head, meager amount

has been given by the Tribunal, whiich is in contraventions to the

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

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported

in AIR 2017 SC 5157. He further submitted that under these

facts and circumstances, the impugned award needs suitable

enhancement.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance

Company submitted that no illegality has been committed by the

Tribunal while exonerating the Insurance Company. He submitted

that under the cover note No.456604 and under the Policy Number

3132230102587, the vehicle in question, which is involved in the

accident bearing No.HR-07-9322, was fully insured with the

insurance company for the period commencing from 29.10.1991

to 28.11.1991 and in this regard, premium of Rs.313/- was

charged by the Insurance Company for one month only, but

subsequently, manipulations were done in this policy and by over-

writing the term of the Insurance Policy, the date was extended

from 28.11.1991 to 28.11.1992.

(4 of 7) [CMA-87/2001]

Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company further

submitted that by doing such manipulations and over-writing in

the policy, the total term of the policy became 13 months. Counsel

further submitted that an Insurance Policy cannot be issued

beyond a period of 12 months. Hence, on the face of record,

Insurance Policy appears to be fabricated.

So far as, the contention of counsel for the appellants with

regard to deduction of personal expenses and meager amount

awarded to the appellants-claimants under the conventional heads

is concerned, he is not in a position to controvert the same.

Learned counsel for the respondent-owner of vehicle

(Tejinder Pal Singh) submitted that the involvement of vehicle in

question is doubtful because it is not clear from the record that

whether the alleged accident has been caused by vehicle No.PAT-

9321 or HR-07-9322 or not. He further submitted that the vehicle

bearing No.HR-07-9322 was fully insured and under these

circumstances, the owner of the vehicle is not liable to make any

payment of compensation to the claimants-appellants. Thus, the

Tribunal has committed an error in exonerating the Insurance

Company from its liability.

Heard. Considered the arguments of counsel for the parties.

Perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal while

deciding issue No.3,4, 4A and 4B, reveal that the accident

occurred on 29.05.1992 by the vehicle bearing No.HR-07-9322.

When the Insurance Policy of the vehicle was produced on the

record of the case, various over-writings and manipulations were

found in the insurance policy bearing number 3132230102587,

which clearly show that the aforementioned insurance policy was

issued for one month only and the same was valid w.e.f.

(5 of 7) [CMA-87/2001]

29.10.1991 till 28.11.1991 and even premium of Rs.313/- was

charged by the Insurance Company for one month only. But

subsequently, certain over-writings and manipulations were done

in the policy and by doing so, the validity period was extended

from 29.10.1991 to 28.11.1992. Hence, the total term of the

Insurance Policy became valid for 13 months. It is quite

shocking and surprising for this Court as this Court never found

any policy having its validity for 13 months, which is never found

in any policy as the Insurance Policy is always issued only for the

term of 12 months. However, from the perusal of the Insurance

Policy also, it is crystal clear that fabrication has been done by

someone in the Insurance Policy from escaping the liability to

make the payment of compensation to the claimants.

There is no force in the arguments of counsel for the

respondent-owner of vehicle that the involvement of vehicle is

doubtful and whether the accident was occurred from the vehicle

bearing No.PAT-9321 or HR-07-9322 or not. It is clear case of the

claimants that the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing No.

HR-07-9322 and even from the perusal of reply filed on behalf of

owner of the vehicle, it is clear that a specific plea was taken that

the old number of the vehicle No.HR-07-9322 was PAT-9321,

though no such evidence was produced by this respondent-owner

of the vehicle, while appearing in the witness box and the Tribunal

has taken a note of this fact and rightly concluded that the

accident was caused by the vehicle No.HR-07-9322.

It is a fit case, in which the Tribunal should have directed the

Insurance Company to lodge FIR against the delinquent person,

who has made manipulations in the insurance policy and

submitted a forged and fabricated document before the Court. So,

(6 of 7) [CMA-87/2001]

under these circumstances, there is no illegality in the findings

recorded by the Tribunal that the vehicle in question was not

insured on the date of accident and the Insurance Company has

rightly been exonerated.

So far as, the enhancement of the amount of compensation

is concerned, it is not in dispute that whenever notional income is

determined, the deduction towards personal expenses should not

have been made, as this Court has decided this issue in the case

of Smt. Mukti (supra).

This fact is also not in dispute that no amount towards future

prospects has been granted to the claimants and meager amount

under the conventional heads has been awarded, so, the

impugned award needs suitable enhancement in terms of the

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

(supra). Thus, the award is recomputed as under:-

Notional income (as assessed Rs. 15,000/- by the Tribunal (annual)) Add 40 % towards future Rs.15,000/- + 6,000/-

prospects = 21,000/-

Rs.21,000 X 18 = 3,78,000/-

Compensation towards loss Rs.3,78,000/-

of income
Compensation awarded         by Rs.1,70,000/-
Tribunal towards loss        of
income
Compensation        awardable Rs.2,08,000/-
towards loss of income
Conventional heads         Rs. 70,000/- - Rs.17,000/-

(Rs.17,000/- as awarded by =Rs.53,000/-

the Tribunal) Enhanced amount of Rs. 2,08,000/- + Rs. 53,000/-

compensation                      =Rs. 2,61,000/-





                                                                               (7 of 7)             [CMA-87/2001]

In view of the above, the appellants-claimants would be

entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 2,61,000/- from the Insurance

Company. Insurance company is directed to pay additional amount

of Rs. 2,61,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified

copy of this judgment. The enhanced amount shall carry interest

@ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the

actual payment is made.

Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

In Cross Objection (Civil) No. 44/2001

In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove while

deciding Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 87/2001, there is no force