Pushpa Kanwar vs Madan Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 11926 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
              S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1326/2022
1.     Pushpa Kanwar W/o Late Bhawani Singh, Aged About 34
       Years, R/o Santoda, Tehsil Osiyan, Distt. Jodhpur.
2.     Gajendra Singh S/o Late Bhawani Singh, Aged About 12
       Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt.
       Pushpa Kanwar W/o Bhawani Singh, R/o Santoda, Tehsil
       Osiyan, Distt. Jodhpur.
3.     Deepika D/o Late Bhawani Singh, Aged About 14 Years,
       Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Pushpa
       Kanwar W/o Bhawani Singh, R/o Santoda, Tehsil Osiyan,
       Distt. Jodhpur.
4.     Dhirendra Singh S/o Late Bhawani Singh, Aged About 15
       Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt.
       Pushpa Kanwar W/o Bhawani Singh, R/o Santoda, Tehsil
       Osiyan, Distt. Jodhpur.
5.     Smt. Meera Kanwar W/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 63
       Years, R/o Santoda, Tehsil Osiyan, Distt. Jodhpur.
6.     Bhanwar Signh S/o Mag Singh, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
       Santoda, Tehsil Osiyan, Distt. Jodhpur.
                                                                  ----Appellants
                                     Versus
1.     Madan Singh S/o Pep Singh, R/o Santoda Khurd, Tehsil
       Osiyan, Distt. Jodhpur. (Driver/owner)
2.     National Insurance Company Ltd, Through Divisional
       Manager,     Divisional       Office    Residency        Road,   Jodhpur.
       (Insurer)
                                                                ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. G.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s)        :     ---



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                Judgment

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON                    :::            17.08.2022
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :::                             28.09.2022
BY THE COURT

(2 of 4) [CMA-1326/2022]

This Misc. Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment dated 07.05.2022

passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1,

Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), in MACT Claim

No.289/2018 whereby, the claim application filed by the

applicants-claimants on account of death of her husband Bhawani

Singh was partly allowed and applicants-claimants were awarded

compensation to the tune of Rs.44,18,550/- with interest at the

rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

application.

Bereft of elaborate details, the facts necessary for disposal of

the appeal are that the appellants herein are the legal

representatives/successors of deceased Bhawani Singh who met

with an accident on 04.12.2017 while going to his house in his

jeep bearing No. RJ 19 UC 4037, at about 11:30 p.m. near the

Utamber Piyau with a Bolero car bearing registration No. RJ 19 UB

4807. The death of deceased Bhawani Singh in a vehicular

accident is not under dispute and the appellants are his legal

representatives is also not a question under consideration.

Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was partly allowed by the

Tribunal vide order dated 07.05.2022.

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants-claimants have

preferred this appeal for enhancement of quantum of

compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that

there was no negligence on the part of the deceased while driving

his jeep. He submits that learned Tribunal has awarded

(3 of 4) [CMA-1326/2022]

compensation to the tune of Rs.44,18,550/- only and the rate of

interest imposed is 6% p.a., both of which are inadequate. The

learned tribunal did not decide the present appeal in accordance

with law. The age of the deceased at the time of his death was 35

years but the learned tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15

instead of 16 while deciding the annual salary. He further submits

that the impugned award suffers from gross illegality inasmuch as

the Tribunal failed to appreciate the factum of quantum of

compensation award-able to the claimants correctly.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-claimants and

perused the material available on record.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case

and after scrutinizing the record, this Court is of the opinion that

the award passed by learned tribunal deserves to be affirmed as

there is no error in calculation of the annual income of the

deceased and the assessment of future income of the deceased;

the multiplier has rightly been applied to the multiplicand by the

learned Tribunal according to the table prepared in Sarla Verma

and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in

(2009) 6 SCC 121.

In light of the judicial pronouncements made by Hon'ble the

Supreme Court in this context, this court is of the firm view that

the language employed in Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act uses

the expression 'just compensation' which means that the

compensation awarded should be just and reasonable. It has been

propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the amount of

compensation determined by a court of law should be fair,

reasonable and equitable by accepted legal standards and it

(4 of 4) [CMA-1326/2022]

should not be a forensic lottery. Just compensation should not

mean perfect or absolute compensation.

It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of

profit. Assessment of compensation should not be objective

though it involves hypothetical consideration.

The findings and the assessment made by the learned

Tribunal are just and fair and thus, this court does not see any

reason to interfere in the impugned award.

The submissions made by learned counsel for Appellant are

devoid of any merit and thus, they deserve to be rejected.

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

(FARJAND ALI),J 33-Anshul/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)