United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Anisa And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 634 Raj/2

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                 BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2030/2018

United India Insurance Company Limited, Service Through
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office Dhoolkot Road, Dholpur Raj Insurance Company
Maruti Van No. Rj 11 Ua 0941
                                                                ----Appellant
                                 Versus
1.    Anisa W/o Late Sh. Sakooruddin @ Shakiluddin, R/o
      Village Toor, Daaniyal, Tehsil And District Dholpur Raj
2.    Kumari    Fareen,     Pisran      Late     Sh.     Sakooruddin      Minor
      Through    Guardian        Mother       Anisa,      R/o   Village   Toor,
      Daaniyal, Tehsil And District Dholpur Raj
3.    Akil Pisran Late Sh. Sakooruddin Minor Through Guardian
      Mother Anisa, R/o Village Toor, Daaniyal, Tehsil And
      District Dholpur Raj
4.    Asharfi W/o Sh. Hakim Singh, R/o Village Toor, Daaniyal,
      Tehsil And District Dholpur Raj
5.    Hakim S/o Sh. Muradi, R/o Village Toor, Daaniyal, Tehsil
      And District Dholpur Raj
                                                 ....Respondents/Claimants

6. Girraj Kishore S/o Sh. Deviram @ Devicharan, R/o Sitaram Colony, Dholpur Tehsil And District Dholpur Vehicle Owner Maruti Van No. Rj 11 Ua 0941

----Respondent/Non-Claimants No.2 Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1983/2018

1. Anisha W/o Late Shri Sakuriddin Sakeeluddin, R/o Village Tor, Daniyal, Tehsil And District Dholpur Rajasthan

2. Kumari Fareem D/o Shri Sakuriddin @ Sakeeluddin., Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Their Mother Smt. Anisha W/o Shri Sakuriddin @ Sakeeluddin. R/o Village Tor, Daniyal, Tehsil And District Dholpur Rajasthan

3. Akeel S/o Shri Sakuriddin @ Sakeeluddin., Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Their Mother Smt. Anisha W/o Shri Sakuriddin @ Sakeeluddin. R/o Village Tor, Daniyal, Tehsil And District Dholpur Rajasthan

(2 of 6) [CMA-2030/2018]

4. Asharfi W/o Shri Hakim Singh, R/o Village Tor, Daniyal, Tehsil And District Dholpur Rajasthan

5. Hakim S/o Shri Muradi, R/o Village Tor, Daniyal, Tehsil And District Dholpur Rajasthan

----Claimants/Appellants Versus

1. The United Indian Insurance Company, Through Its Manager, Branch At Dhoolkot Road, Dholpur Rajasthan Insurance Company

2. Girraj Kishore S/o Shri Devi Ram @ Devicharan, R/o Sitaram Colony, Dholpur Tehsil And District Dholpur Owner Of Vehicle

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. V. P. Mathur, Adv. in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2030/2018 Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv. in S.B.

                               Civil    Miscellaneous    Appeal     No.
                               1983/2018
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Diensh Kumar Garg, Adv. in S.B.
                               Civil   Miscellaneous  Appeal   No.
                               2030/2018
                               Mr. V. P. Mathur, Adv. in S.B. Civil
                               Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1983/2018

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 12.01.2023

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 18.01.2023

Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same

judgment and award dated 30.01.2018, hence they are being

decided by this common order.

Brief facts of the appeals are that on dated 07.04.2014 the

deceased Sakruddin @ Shakildudin was going from his house

towards Mahwa Kheda to attend a marriage on motorcycle No.RJ-

11-SD-7506. At about 7:00 PM, when the motor cycle reached

(3 of 6) [CMA-2030/2018]

near Lane Ka Pura ahead Purani Chawani, the said motor cycle

was hit by Maruti Van No.RJ-11UA-0941. Resultantly, Sakruddin @

Shakildudin sustained injuries. He died on account of said injuries.

FIR was lodged at P.S. Sadar Dholpur. Appellants Anisha & Ors.

filed a claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the M.V. Act.

The learned tribunal after hearing both the parties, awarded

Rs.12,04,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 7% per

annum in favour of the claimants.

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2030/2018:-

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that

while passing the award dated 30.01.2018, learned tribunal

miserably failed to appreciate the material available on record

because alleged accident took place on 07.04.2014, whereas the

present FIR was lodged on next day by the brother of the

deceased against unknown vehicle. During investigation, the

Maruti Van was falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the

Insurance Company submits that Investigating Officer recorded

the statement of Puttu @ Pratap as the eye witness. The said

witness was examined in the criminal trial in which he had not

supported the prosecution case and denied that any accident took

place before him. So, trial court acquitted the respondent No.6 for

the offence under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC. Learned counsel

for the Insurance Company also submits that the Insurance

Company had filed an application before the learned tribunal for

giving time for producing the statement of Puttu @ Pratap and

copy of the judgment of the trial court regarding acquittal but

learned tribunal dismissed the application filed by the Insurance

Company. So, order of the learned tribunal be set aside.

                                                 (4 of 6)                  [CMA-2030/2018]



     Learned     counsel       for     the     claimants           has    opposed    the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance

Company and submitted that learned tribunal has rightly

dismissed the application filed by the Insurance Company because

after giving so many opportunities, Insurance Company did not

produce the evidence. Learned counsel for the claimants also

submitted that detailed enquiry is not necessary in the claim

petition and also submitted that the claimants by way of evidence

clearly proved that deceased died due to accident. So, appeal filed

by the Insurance Company be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for

the claimants.

It is an admitted position that during the trial, Insurance

Company had not submitted the statement of Puttu @ Pratap and

judgment of the criminal court and after giving so many

opportunities, the Insurance Company did not adduce the

evidence, so, trial court closed their evidence. The claimants by

way of evidence clearly proved that deceased died due to accident

and charge-sheet was filed against the respondent No.6. So, in my

considered opinion, the tribunal has not committed any error in

allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants. Thus, present

appeal filed by the Insurance Company being devoid of merit, is

liable to be dismissed.

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1983/2018:-

Learned counsel for the claimants submits that claimants in

their claim petition clearly pleaded and stated that deceased was

earning Rs.12,000/- per month by running a readymade garment

shop but learned tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the

(5 of 6) [CMA-2030/2018]

deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the

claimants also submits that at that time as per minimum wages

Act, one day wages were Rs.189/-. So, compensation be

calculated as per the minimum wages. Learned counsel for the

claimants also submits that learned tribunal wrongly awarded

lumpsum amount of Rs.40,000/- towards the loss of consortium.

Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that as per the

judgment of the Apex Court consortium should be Rs.40,000/- per

claimant. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that

learned tribunal has granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate

and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is also on the

lower side. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that it

should be Rs.20,000/- in each head. So, compensation granted by

the learned tribunal be modified.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and

submitted that the tribunal rightly assessed the income as well as

the amount under other heads. So, appeal filed by the claimants

be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the

Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment & award

and the material available on record.

It is an admitted position that the claimants had not

submitted any evidence that income of the deceased was Rs.

12,000/- per month at the time of accident but in my considered

opinion, the tribunal wrongly calculated the income of the

deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. In the absence of any

evidence, the tribunal should have calculated the income of the

(6 of 6) [CMA-2030/2018]

deceased as per Minimum Wages Act i.e. Rs.189/- per day. So,

income of the deceased is calculated as (189 x 30 = 5670/-) 5670

x 12 =68,040/- per annum. Applying multiplier of 18, dependency

of the claimants comes to Rs.68040 x 18 = 12,24,420/-. Taking

into consideration, the number of dependents, 1/4 of the income

should have been deducted towards personal expenses of the

deceased. Thus, the amount is calculated as Rs.12,24,720 x 1/4

=9,18,540/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive an

addition to 40% of the said amount as future prospects (9,18,540

x 40%=3,67,416) 9,18,540 + 3,67,416 = 12,85,956/-. The

claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss

of the consortium instead of Rs.40,000/-. The claimants would be

further entitled to receive Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate

instead of Rs.15,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards funeral expenses

instead of Rs.15,000/- as awarded by the tribunal. Thus,

claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.12,85,956/- +

1,00,000/- + 20,000/- +20,000/- = 14,25,956/- instead of

Rs.12,04,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant United India

Insurance Company Limited is dismissed.

Appeal filed by the claimants Anisha & Ors. is partly allowed.

The impugned award dated 30.01.2018 is modified to the extent

that the claimants would be entitled to get Rs.14,25,956/- by way

of compensation instead of Rs.12,04,000/- as awarded by the

tribunal. Other terms and conditions of the award shall remain

unchanged.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /80-81

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)