Rajasthan High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Manbhar And Others on 14 October, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1034/2016
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Near Nizam Beedi
Factory, Subhash Bazar, Tonk having its TP Claim Hub 93,
Sapphire Center, Ajmer Road, Jaipur through its authorised
signatory (Insurance Company)
----Appellant-non-claimant
Versus
1. Smt Manbhar wife of Lt. SH. Sheoji, resident of Kiyaria, Tehsil
Todarasingh, District Tonk.
2. Pradhan son of Lt. Sh. Sheoji
3. Dharam Raj son of Lt. Sh. Sheoji
(respondent Nos. 2 & 3 being minor through guardian i.e.
mother Smt. Manbhar.
4. Dhanna son of Lt. Sh. Bhoora, resident of Kiyaria, Tehsil
Todarasingh, District Tonk.
5. Gaduli wife of Dhanna son of Lt. Sh. Bhoora, resident of
Kiyaria, Tehsil Todarsingh, District Tonk
----claimants-respondents.
6. Chotu Lal @ Chotu Ram son of Sh. Ramkaran, resident of
Arampura @ Aramnagar, Post Kukkad, Tehsil Todaraisingh,
District Tonk (Owner and Driver)
----non-claimants/respondents
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Khandelwal, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
14/10/2022
Matter comes up on an interim application No.19063/2018
for vacating the ex parte stay order.
With the consent of the parties, the arguments have been
heard, at this stage.
(2 of 4) [CMA-1034/2016]
Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance
Company against the judgment and award dated 05.11.2015
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk Rajasthan (for
short 'the Tribunal') in MAC case No.47/2014 by which the claim
petition filed by the claimants was allowed and the appellant-
Insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation to the
claimants to the tune of Rs.14,15,420/- to the claimants along
with interest @9% from the date of filing the claim petition.
Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the
evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties,
decided the claim petition of the claimants and awarded
compensation as indicated above.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
submits that the deceased was not a permanent salaried person
as he was not working in the Government Sector, even then the
Tribunal has awarded future prospects to the tune of 50%. He
further submits that even under the conventional heads also,
exorbitant amount to the tune of Rs.4,25,000/- has been
awarded. Counsel submits that in the light of the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC
5157, the claimants are entitled to get future prospects @ 40%
and under the conventional heads, they are entitled to get a lump
sum amount of Rs.70,000/-. Learned counsel therefore prayed
that under these circumstances, the impugned award passed by
the Tribunal is liable to be modified.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants
submits that the deceased was treated as a labour and his
minimum wages were considered as Rs.166/- per day for 26 days
(3 of 4) [CMA-1034/2016]
i.e. Rs.4316/-. He submits that as per the judgment passed by the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jalaur Singh @
Dilawar Singh & anr. Vs. Barkat Singh and Ors. Reported in
2012 RAR 499 (Raj.), the minimum wages of the deceased
should have been considered for 30 days. However, he is not in a
position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company with regard to the granting of 50%
future prospects and exorbitant amount under the conventional
heads, in view of the judgment passed in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra).
Heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the
record.
It is not in dispute that the deceased was not a permanent
salaried person. Thus, the Tribunal was not right in granting future
prospects to the tune of 50%. As per the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants
are entitled to get 40% amount towards future prospects and
under the conventional heads, they are entitled to get a lump sum
amount of Rs.70,000/-, but the Tribunal has awarded excess
amount of rs.4,25,000/- under the conventional heads.
As far as the argument with regard to the income of the
deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the minimum
wages for 26 days only and in view of the judgment of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jalaur Singh @
Dilawar Singh (supra), the minimum wages of the deceased
should have been considered for 30 days instead of 26 days.
Thus, the award is recomputed as under:-
Annual income Rs.166/- x 30 x 12 =
(4 of 4) [CMA-1034/2016]
Rs.59,760/-
Rs.10,15,920/-
Add 40% towards future Rs.10,15,920/- + Rs. 406308/-
prospects = Rs. 14,22,228/-
Less 1/4th amount towards Rs. 14,22,228/- - Rs.
personal expenses 3,55,557/-
= Rs.10,66,671/-
Add towards conventional Rs.70,000/-
heads
Total compensation awardable Rs.11,36,671/-
Excess amount awarded by the Rs.14,15,420/--Rs.11,36,671/-
Tribunal = Rs. 2,78,749/-
Reduced amount of Rs.2,78,749/-
compensation
Thus, it is clear that excess amount of Rs.2,78,749/- has
been awarded in favour of the claimants, which is liable to be
refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.
Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and the
Tribunal is directed to refund Rs.2,78,749/- along with interest to
the Insurance Company within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
All pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI/47
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
