Rajasthan High Court

United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Sonu Devi And Others ... on 3 October, 2023

Bench: Ashutosh Kumar

[2023:RJ-JP:29583]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1538/2014

United India Insurance Co Ltd, Regional Office Sahara Chambers,
Tonk Road, Jaipur through Constituted Attorney Dr. S. P. Mathur
(Manager).
                                                 ----Non-Claimant/Appellant
                                    Versus
1. Sonu Devi W/o Late Vikram Singh aged about 22 years
2. Tammanna D/o Late Vikram Singh, aged 2 years,
3. New Born Child
Claimants-respondent Nos.2 & 3 are being minor through their

natural guardian and mother Sonu Devi W/o Late Vikram Singh, All R/o Mohalla Kotdi, Village & Post Karoli, Tehsil Kotputli.

----Claimants/Respondents

4. Sundarram S/o Tarachand, R/o Mankot, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar (Driver of Trailer No.RJ-14-GE-7356).

5. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Narayan Lal, R/o Bachhari, Ganeshpura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Owner of Trailer No.RJ-14-GE- 7356).



For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Raaj Pal Choudhary
For Respondent(s)         :     None present



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

                                     Order

03/10/2023

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant -

Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 against the judgment and award dated 13.03.2014 passed

by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition

No.481/2012 whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the

claim petition filed by the claimant and awarded a sum of

Rs.13,72,500/-.

[2023:RJ-JP:29583] (2 of 6) [CMA-1538/2014]

2. Brief facts of the matter are that on 15.10.2012 an FIR

No.164/2012 was lodged in Police Station Guda Endla, District Pali

stating therein that on 15.10.2012 the deceased - Vikram was

driving the truck bearing registration No.RJ-32-GA-7332 and going

towards to Uttar Pradesh, at that time another truck bearing

registration No.RJ-14-GE-7356 hit the truck of the deceased and

due to which he sustained injuries and died.

3. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 was filed by the claimants, claiming Rs.52,95,000/- as

compensation on account of death of Vikram Singh under various

heads.

4. The claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company

of the offending vehicle.

5. Learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award

dated 13.03.2014 and partly allowed the claim petition and total

compensation of Rs.13,72,500/- was awarded under various

heads.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award of the

learned Tribunal the present appeal has been filed to quash and

set aside the judgment and award.

7. Learned counsel argued that the learned Tribunal has

wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as

Rs.5000/- in absence of of any documentary evidence.

[2023:RJ-JP:29583] (3 of 6) [CMA-1538/2014]

8. Learned counsel further argued that the learned Tribunal has

also erred in assessing future prospects as 50%, as the deceased

was not in regular or permanent employment.

9. Learned counsel submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in

granting Rs.1 lac under the head of loss of care and guidance for

minor children and Rs.1 lac for loss of consortium, whereas as per

judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay

Sethi & Ors reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, only Rs.40,000/-

each may be granted to wife and children of the deceased.

10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

material available on record.

11. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant regarding assessment of daily income of the deceased

is concerned, the income of the deceased - Vikram Singh was

assessed as Rs.5000/- per month by the learned Tribunal keeping

in mind that the deceased was a skilled labour, which in the

considered opinion of this Court is not on higher side.

12. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the learned Tribunal has wrongly

enhanced 50% under the head of future prospects and the same

is to be 40%. Looking to the age of the deceased as 26 years on

the date of incident learned Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier

of 17. The deceased was survived by his wife and two children,

therefore, under the head of personal expenses, the learned

Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th of the assessed income of the

deceased.

[2023:RJ-JP:29583] (4 of 6) [CMA-1538/2014]

13. Under the head of loss of consortium, the learned Tribunal

has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,00,000/- to the

children. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Pranay Sethi (supra), United India Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur & Anr.

reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 and Magma General

Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors

reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the claimant-respondent-wife of

the deceased is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- under the head of

spousal consortium, claimant-respondent Nos.2 & 3, who are

children of the deceased, are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each

under the head of parental consortium.

14. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of

the case and in the light of above referred judgments of Hon'ble

Supreme Court the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue Nos.1

to 4 elaborately discussed the evidence and awarded a 'just

compensation' under the of head of loss of income, deducted ¼ th

of the income under the head of personal expenses and has also

rightly applied multiplier of 17, but has wrongly granted 50% of

income as future prospects and Rs.2,00,000/- as loss of

consortium, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is to be

reduced. Thus, total monthly income of the deceased comes out to

be Rs.5000 + 40% (Rs.2000/-) future prospects = Rs.7000/- per

month. The net income of the deceased comes out to be Rs.7000

divided by 4 = Rs.1750 and total Rs.7000- Rs.1750= Rs.5250/-

per month. Now, applying the multiplier of 17, total amount

[2023:RJ-JP:29583] (5 of 6) [CMA-1538/2014]

quantified as the net income of the deceased comes out to be

Rs.5250 x 12 x 17 = Rs.10,71,000/-.

15. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- under the head of

funeral expenses and has not awarded any amount under the

head of loss of estate. Considering the directions of Hon'ble the

Apex Court, this Court deems it fit to award Rs.15,000/- under

each of these heads.

16. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the

extent as under:



  1.          Loss of Annual Income (as                     Rs.5250 x 12 x 17 =
              per   the  age      of   the                  Rs.10,71,000/-
              deceased, multiplier of 17).
  2.          Under the head of Spousal                     Rs.40,000/- each to the
              Consortium and Parental                       appellants
              Consortium                                    Total Rs.1,20,000/-
  3.          Funeral expenses                              Rs.15,000/-
  4.           Loss of estate                               Rs.15,000/-
  5.          Total     amount                    of        Rs.12,21,000/-
              compensation
  6.          Amount awarded            by    the           Rs.13,72,000/-
              Tribunal
  7.          Reduced     amount                  of        (Rs.12,21,000-
              compensation                                  Rs.13,72,000=
                                                            Rs.1,51,000/-

17. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award

dated 13.03.2014 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the

aforesaid extent. The appellants are entitled to get a sum of

Rs12,21,000/- instead of Rs.13,72,000/- as compensation.

Insurance Company has deposited the whole of the amount in the

learned Tribunal, out of which Rs.5 lac are in the form of FDR, the

amount of the FDR shall be payable as per the judgment of this

appeal.

[2023:RJ-JP:29583] (6 of 6) [CMA-1538/2014]

18. The other terms and conditions of the impugned judgment

and award shall remain the same.

19. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.