Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dakhi Bai vs S.M. Murugesan on 2 February, 2023

Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas

[2023/RJJD/002894]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1149/2020

S.m. Murugesan S/o Muttusamy, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village - Aera, Kandampalayam, District Jamkkal (Tamil Nadu ) (Owner)

----Appellant Versus

1. Dakhi Bai W/o Mohan Lal Meena, R/o Sakariya, P.s. -

Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)

2. Shanti Lal S/o Mohan Lal Meena, R/o Sakariya, P.s. -

Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)

3. Fateh Lal S/o Mohan Lal Meena, R/o Sakariya, P.s. -

Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)

4. Kupuswami S/o Laxman Swami, B/c Acharya, R/o 82, Prap Road, Erode (Tamil Nadu) (Driver)

5. Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 146/n, 2Nd Floor, Kumar Complex, Anna Salai, Tiruchengodu, Namakkal (Tamil Nadu) (Insurer)

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 652/2021

1. Dakhi Bai W/o Mohan Lal Meena, Aged About 54 Years, Sakariya, P.s. Chhotisadri, Dis. Pratapgarh

2. Shanti Lal S/o Mohan Lal Meena, Aged About 34 Years, Sakariya, P.s. Chhotisadri, Dis. Pratapgarh

3. Fateh Lal S/o Mohan Lal Meena, Aged About 32 Years, Sakariya, P.s. Chhotisadri, Dis. Pratapgarh

----Appellants Versus

1. S.m. Murugesan S/o Muttusawy, Village Aera Kandamapalayam, Dis. Jamkkal (Tamil Nadu)

2. Kupuswami S/o Laxman Swami, 82, Prap Road, Erode (Tamil Nadu)

3. Manager, The United India Insurance Company Limited 146/n, 2Nd Floor, Kumar Complex, Anna Salai, Tiruchengodu, Namakkal (Tamil Nadu)

----Respondents

[2023/RJJD/002894] (2 of 6) [CMA-1149/2020]

For their respective : Mr. Manish Pitalia parties Mr. Nikhil Ajmera Mr. Sumit Singhal : Mr. TRS Sodha

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

DATE OF JUDGMENT 02/2/2023 (IA No.01/21 IN SBCMA No.1149/2020)

The matter comes up on an application under Order 41 Rule

27 CPC for taking the document on record.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed and the document - Information under Section 6(1) &

7(1) of RTI Act, 2005 issued by the Assistant Information Officer

and Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore (Central) is

taken on record.

CMA No.1149/2020

The present misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-owner

against the judgment and award dated 17.12.2019 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred

to learned Tribunal for short) in Motor Accident Claim No.311/2017

(57/16), whereby the learned Tribunal exonerated the Insurance

Company from its liability to pay the compensation and directed

the appellant-owner to pay the compensation to the tune of

Rs.4,28,128/- to the claimants.

[2023/RJJD/002894] (3 of 6) [CMA-1149/2020]

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned

Tribunal has held the appellant-owner liable to pay the

compensation amount only on the ground that at the time of

accident, the offending vehicle was not having valid permit.

However, in view of the documents i.e. Information under Section

6(1) & 7(1) of RTI Act, 2005 issued by the Assistant Information

Officer and Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore

(Central) placed on record, it is clear that at the time of accident,

the offending vehicle being non-transport vehicle for which no

permit is required, the learned Tribunal has wrongly held the

appellant-owner liable to indemnify the claimants of the award

amount.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance company

submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned

judgment and award. He therefore prays that no interference is

warranted by this Court.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

the fact that the offending vehicle being non-transport vehicle for

which no permit is required, therefore, this Court is of the opinion

that the appellant-owner cannot be held liable to indemnify the

claimants of the award amount.

In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The

impugned judgment and award dated 17.12.2019 passed by the

MACT, Pratapgarh is modified with a direction to the respondent-

Insurance Company to pay the award amount to the claimants.

[2023/RJJD/002894] (4 of 6) [CMA-1149/2020]

CMA No.652/2021

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and

award dated 17.12.2019 passed by MACT, Pratapgarh in Claim Case No.

311/2017 (CIS No.57/16), whereby the learned Tribunal after framing

the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned

counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim petition of the

appellants-claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,28,128/- in their

favour on account of the death of Mohan Lal in the accident, which

occurred on 19.11.2015.

Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal

has not computed the award in the light of the judgment of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017)

16 SCC 680 and therefore, very less amount has been awarded in

this case.

Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased

was 60 years of age at the time of accident and was earning

Rs.6030/- per month. He further submits that the learned Tribunal

wrongly deducted 1/2 of his income towards personal and living

expenses, whereas the deceased was a married person and has

left behind his wife and two children, therefore, the learned

Tribunal should have taken the deduction of 1/3rd instead of 1/2 in

view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla

Verma & Ors. V/s Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6

SCC 12.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance

Company submits that the Tribunal has decided the claim petition of the

[2023/RJJD/002894] (5 of 6) [CMA-1149/2020]

appellants-claimants on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. He

further submits that the factors taken into consideration by the Tribunal

while calculating the compensation in the present case does not suffer

from any error. He submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal to

the family members of the deceased in this case can easily be said to

be 'just compensation'. He, however, is not in a position to dispute the

fact that the learned tribunal has wrongly deducted the monthly income

to the tune of 1/2.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the judgment dated 17.12.2019, as well as other relevant

record of the case.

It is an undisputed fact that the deceased was 60 years of age at

the time of accident and was earning Rs.6030/- per month. The

deceased was a married person and has left behind his wife and

two children therefore, the Tribunal should have taken the

deduction of 1/3rd instead of 1/2 in view of the judgment of Hon'ble

the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra).

Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount is

required to be recomputed in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble

the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra). The same

is recomputed as under:-



For future prospects 10% of Rs.6030                       Rs.603/- per month
:-                   (Income of
                     deceased)
Add: 6030/- + Rs.603/-                                    Rs. 6633/-

Deduction on account of deceased being a Rs. 6633- 2211 = Rs. married person- 1/3rd x 6633=2211 4422/-

[2023/RJJD/002894] (6 of 6) [CMA-1149/2020]

The age of deceased was 60 years therefore, a multiplier of

09 will be used in view of the judgment passed in the case of

Sarla Verma (supra).

(I) Compensation due to loss Rs.4422x12x09 Rs. 4,77,576/-

                                          of   income       by using
                                          multiplier of 09.

                                   (II)   For the Loss of Estate & funeral expenses                 Rs.   30,000/-

                                   (III) For Loss of Consortium                                     Rs.   40,000/-

                                                                             Total (I+II+III) Rs. 5,47,576/-

                                          Amount awarded by the Tribunal                            Rs. 4,28,128/-


                                                                      Enhanced amount Rs. 1,19,448/-

In view of the discussions made above, the appeal is partly

allowed.

As the connected appeal preferred by the appellant-owner has

been allowed and it has been held that the Insurance company is liable

to pay the entire amount of compensation to the claimants, therefore,

the respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the total amount

of compensation (already ordered by the tribunal and enhanced amount

by this Court) in favour of the appellants-claimants within a period of

two months from today. It is made clear that the amount shall carry

interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the

same is paid.