National Insurance Co Ltd vs Walli Bai And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 675 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3293/2008

National Insurance Company Ltd. through Regional Manager,
Jaipur.
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                  Versus
1. Wali Bai W/o Late Kumar Sahab aged about 27 Years.
2. Kum. Reena aged 5 Years D/o Kumar Sahab
3. Kum. Ravina aged about 3 years D/o Kumar Sahab
4. Ravi Kumar aged about 2 years S/o Kumar Sahab
5. Sua Bai aged about 60 years w/o Late Bhanwar Singh
6. Kum. Ravita aged about 1 year D/o Late Kumar Sahab
S. No.2, 3, 4 & 6 through their mother Smt. Saraswati all
resident of Village Kachpura, Tehsil Basedi Dist. Dholpur
                                                   ....Claimant-Respondents

7. Hari Singh S/o Shri Maharaj Singh, Resident of Village Ogai, Tehsil Basedi, Dist. Dholpur

---Non Claimant-Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2521/2008

1. Smt. Vali Bai W/o Late Kumar Sahab aged about 27 Years.

2. Kum. Reena aged 5 Years D/o Kumar Sahab

3. Kum. Ravina aged about 3 years D/o Kumar Sahab

4. Ravi Kumar aged about 2 years S/o Kumar Sahab

5. Kum. Ravita aged about 1 year D/o Late Kumar Sahab Nos.2 to 5 all minor through their natural mother Smt. Vali Bai wife of Late Kumar Sahab

6. Sua Bai aged about 62 Years W/o Late Bhanwar Singh all resident of Village Kachpura, Post Angai, Tehsil Basedi, Dist. Dholpur

----Appellant Versus

1. National Insurance Company Ltd. through Regional Manager, having its regional office at LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle Jaipur

2. Hari Singh S/o Shri Maharaj Singh, Resident of Village Ogai, Tehsil Basedi, Dist. Dholpur

----Respondents

(2 of 6) [CMA-3293/2008]

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Bhati, Adv. in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3293/2008 Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv. in S.B.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2521/2008 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv. in S.B.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3293/2008 Mr. Ram Singh Bhati, Adv. in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2521/2008 Mr. Ravi Singh, Adv. on behalf of Mr. J. P. Gupta, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 12.01.2023

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 19.01.2023

Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same

judgment and award dated 01.03.2008, hence they are being

decided by this common order.

Brief facts of the appeals are that on 20.04.2006 at about

2:30 PM deceased Kumar Sahab was coming from Rehrai to

Kachpura by Motor Cycle bearing No.RJ-11-M-0428. When he

reached near Village Jorgarhi, a Mini Bus bearing No.RJ-14-P-8513

came rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle due to which

Kumar Sahab received injuries and he died on way to Hospital. FIR

was lodged at P.S. Sarmathura, District Dholpur. After that,

claimants filed a claim petition. The learned tribunal after hearing

both the parties, awarded Rs.2,82,000/- as compensation

alongwith interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants.

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3293/2008:-

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that

while passing the award dated 01.03.2008, learned tribunal

(3 of 6) [CMA-3293/2008]

miserably failed to appreciate the material available on record

because mini bus driver did not have a valid and effective driving

license as he had two driving licenses in his favour which were

issue to him by Licensing Authority: one from Dholpur and another

from Madhyapradesh. Both licenses were not valid to drive a Mini

Bus, which is Commercial Vehicle. Learned counsel for the

Insurance Company submits that as per the circular of transport

department a valid and effective license is necessary to drive the

Mini Bus but the learned tribunal had ignored this fact and

decided the claim in favour of the claimants. So, appeal be allowed

and claim petition filed by the claimants be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance

Company and submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle

had a valid and effective license which was issued to him to drive

light motor vehicle as per the Motor Vehicles Act. License holder of

light motor vehicle can drive the vehicle which has weight of 7500

kg. So, learned tribunal had not committed any error in allowing

the claim petition. So, appeal filed by the Insurance Company be

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon

the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs.

Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in MACD 2017

(3) (SC) 74.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for

the claimants.

Learned tribunal in its order clearly mentioned that NAW1-

Pawan Kumar categorically stated in his cross-examination that

(4 of 6) [CMA-3293/2008]

the vehicles weighing 7500 kg cover in the light motor vehicles

and Mini Bus comes in category of light motor vehicle. So, in my

considered opinion, learned tribunal has not committed any error

in deciding the claim petition in favour of the claimants. Thus,

present appeal filed by the Insurance Company being devoid of

merti, is liable to be dismissed.

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2521/2008:-

Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the claimants

in their claim petition and evidence clearly stated that deceased

was getting salary of Rs.3,500/- per month. Witness AW3-Anil

Kumar also stated in its evidence that deceased was driving his

truck and he was giving Rs.3,500/- per month to the deceased.

So, learned tribunal wrongly considered the income of the

deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the

claimants also submits that learned tribunal awarded the

consortium of Rs.5,000/- which is on the lower side. 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.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.3,000/- towards loss of estate, 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, appeal filed by the claimants be

allowed and compensation granted by the learned tribunal be

modified.

Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon

the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors.

Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (Civil

Appeal No.8179/2022) decided on 09.12.2022.

(5 of 6) [CMA-3293/2008]

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.

3,500/- per month by driving the truck at the time of accident but

in my considered opinion, the tribunal without any basis calculated

the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month. So, in my

considered opinion, on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at

the relevant point of time, income of the deceased should be

calculated as Rs.2,500/- per month. The age of deceased has

been determined as 32 years, therefore, applying the multiplier of

16, dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.2500 x 12 x 16 =

4,80,000/-. Taking into consideration the number of dependents

i.e. 6 in number, 1/4 of the income should have been deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the amount is

calculated as Rs.4,80,000 x 1/4 =3,60,000/-. The claimants are

further entitled to receive an addition to 40% of the said amount

as future prospects (3,60,000 x 40%=1,44,000) 3,60,000 +

1,44,000 = 5,04,000/-. The claimants would be entitled to receive

Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.20,000/- per claimant) towards loss of

consortium instead of Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the tribunal. The

claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs.20,000/- towards

(6 of 6) [CMA-3293/2008]

loss of estate instead of Rs.3,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards

funeral expenses instead of Rs.2,000/- as awarded by the tribunal.

Thus, claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.5,04,000/- +

1,20,000/- + 20,000/- + 20,000/- = 6,64,000/- instead of

Rs.2,82,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant National

Insurance Company Limited is dismissed.

Appeal filed by the claimants Smt. Vali Bai & Ors. is partly

allowed. The impugned award dated 01.03.2008 is modified to the

extent that the claimants would be entitled to get Rs.6,64,000/-

by way of compensation instead of Rs.2,82,000/- as awarded by

the tribunal. Other terms and conditions of the award shall remain

unchanged.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /76-77

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)