Rajasthan High Court
Smt Sunita Kanwar And Ors vs Mohammad Firoz And Ors on 14 October, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 147/2017
1. Smt. Sunita Kanwar W/o Late Narendra Singh, R/o
Village Soopa Tehsil Sarwad, Kekari Distt. Ajmer.
Presently R/o Makaan No. 11, Gyatri Nagar, Ward No. 14,
Sanganer, Jaipur
2. Rajyavardhan Singh S/o Late Narendra Singh, Minor
Through Their Natural Guardian/ Mother Smt. Sunita
Kanwar, R/o Village Soopa Tehsil Sarwad, Kekari Distt.
Ajmer. Presently R/o Makaan No. 11, Gyatri Nagar, Ward
No. 14, Sanganer, Jaipur
3. Anirudh Singh S/o Late Narendra Singh, Minor Through
Their Natural Guardian/ Mother Smt. Sunita Kanwar, R/o
Village Soopa Tehsil Sarwad, Kekari Distt. Ajmer.
Presently R/o Makaan No. 11, Gyatri Nagar, Ward No. 14,
Sanganer, Jaipur
4. Smt. Jagdish Kanwar S/o Late Shri Dilip Singh, R/o
Village Soopa Tehsil Sarwad, Kekari Distt. Ajmer.
Presently R/o Makaan No. 11, Gyatri Nagar, Ward No. 14,
Sanganer, Jaipur
----Appellants
Versus
1. Mohammad Firoz S/o Mohammad Shakoor, R/o Gaura
Bazar, Post Peer Nagar, Thana Mazipur Distt. Gazipur,
Uttar Pradesh. Driver
2. Jagdish Yadav S/o Phool Chand, R/o Makaan No. 594-A,
Pratap Nagar Extension, Vaidhji Ka Chouraha, Charan
Nadi, Ward No. 1, Thana Murlipura, Sikar Road, Jaipur
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 461/2017
Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Through
Its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Above Kotak Mahindra
Bank, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Having Its Corporate
Office, El-94, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Mahape, Navi Mumbai,
Through Legal Manager Insurance Compnay
----Appellant
Versus
(2 of 5) [CMA-147/2017]
1. Smt. Sunita Kanwar W/o Late Shri Narendra Singh, R/o
Village Soopa, Tehsil- Sarwad, Kekri, District Ajmer, At
Present R/o House No. 11, Ward No. 14, Sanganer Jaipur
2. Rajyavardhan Singh S/o Late Narendra Singh, R/o Village
Soopa, Tehsil- Sarwad, Kekri, District Ajmer, At Present
R/o House No. 11, Ward No. 14, Sanganer Jaipur
3. Anirudh Singh S/o Late Narendra Singh, R/o Village
Soopa, Tehsil- Sarwad, Kekri, District Ajmer, At Present
R/o House No. 11, Ward No. 14, Sanganer Jaipur
Appellant No. 2 And 3 Are Minor Through Smt. Sunita
Kanwar.
4. Smt. Jagdish Kanwar W/o Late Shri Dilip Singh, R/o
Village Soopa, Tehsil- Sarwad, Kekri, District Ajmer, At
Present R/o House No. 11, Ward No. 14, Sanganer Jaipur
5. Mohammad Firoj S/o Mohammad Shakoor, R/o Gaura
Bazar, Post- Peer Nagar, Police Station- Majipur, District-
Gajipur, Utter Pradesh Driver
6. Jagdish Yadav S/o Phool Chand, R/o House No. 594-A,
Pratap Nagar Extension, Vaidh Ji Ka Choraha, Charan
Nadi, Ward No. 1, Police Station- Murlipura, Sikar Road,
Jaipur Owner
----Respondents
For Claimant (s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore, Advocate
For Insurance : Mr. Ritesh Jain, Advocate
Company
For non-claimant(s) : Mr. Laxmi Narayan Kapoor, Advocate
for Mr. Satish Khandal, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
14/10/2022
Matter comes up on an interim application No.1/2022 for
early disposal of this appeal.
Since a very short point is involved in the present appeal,
with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at this
stage.
(3 of 5) [CMA-147/2017]
Both these appeals have been preferred against the
judgment and award dated 19.11.2016 passed by the Court of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short
'the Tribunal') in MAC case No.792/2015 by which the claim
petition filed by the claimants was allowed and the Insurance
Company was directed to pay compensation to the tune of
Rs.37,25,536/-.
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 appellants as indicated above.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the
deceased was not a permanent salaried person, even though the
Tribunal has awarded 50% amount under the head of future
prospects to the claimants. He submits that as per the judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC
5157, future prospects to the extent of 40% is applicable in the
present case. Hence, under these circumtances, interference of
this Court is warranted.
Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that
the Tribunal has granted the compensation to the claimants on a
lower side, which needs suitable enhancement by this Court.
Heard the rival submissions of counsel for the parties and
gone through the documents available on record.
This fact is not in dispute that the deceased was not a
permanent salaried person, hence, the Tribunal has committed an
error in granting future prospects to the tune of 50%, while as per
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(4 of 5) [CMA-147/2017]
(supra), the claimants are entitled to get 40% amount towards
future prospects.
Thus, the award is recomputed as under:-
Loss of monthly income as Rs.16,646/-
assessed by the Tribunal
Add 40% amount towards Rs. 16,646/- + Rs.6658/-
future prospects = Rs.23,304
Less 1/4th amount towards Rs.23,304/- - Rs.5826/-
personal expenses =Rs.17,478/-
Annual income Rs.17478/- x 12 = Rs.209736/-
=Rs.33,55,776/-
Compensation awarded by the Rs.35,95,536/-
Tribunal towards loss of income
of deceased
Excess amount of compensation Rs.35,95,536/-Rs. Rs.33,55,776/-
=Rs. 2,39,760/-
Thus, it is clear that an excess amount of Rs.2,39,760/- has
been awarded in favour of the claimants, which is liable to be
refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.
The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed
and the Tribunal is directed to refund Rs. 2,39,760/- with interest
@7.5 per cent from today till the date of deposition of amount.
As far as the appeal filed by the claimants is concerned, the
Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, has passed the
award on a higher side. it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and
the Court as well, to award 'just compensation'. It is obviously
true that determination of a just compensation cannot be equated
to a bonanza. At the same time, the concept of just compensation
obviously suggests application of fair and equitable principles and
a reasonable approach on the part of the Tribunal and Court. This
reasonableness on the part of the Tribunal and the Court must be
on a large peripheral field.
(5 of 5) [CMA-147/2017]
It is the settled proposition of law that the claimants would
not claim compensation as a windfall and if the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, the same needs no
interference by the Court of appeal. In the totality of facts and
circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to entertain
the present appeal.
Hence, the appeal filed by the claimants is dismissed.
A copy of this judgment be placed in the connected case file.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI/50-51
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
