Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Chandro Devi And Ors. ... on 4 September, 2023
Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas
[2023:RJ-JD:28025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2556/2016
United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Authorised
Signatory, Tp Hub Jodhpur, 2Nd Floor, 74- A, Bhati N-Plaza, Main
Pal Road, Jodhpur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Chandro Devi, Window Of Late Shri Kukh Ram,
Ramsara, Tehsil- Bhadra, District- Hanumangarh
2. Ratan Singh, Son Of Late Shri Mukh Ram, Ramsara,
Tehsil- Bhadra, District- Hanumangarh
3. Rajesh Kumar Son Of Late Shri Mukh Ram, Ramsara,
Tehsil- Bhadra, District- Hanumangarh
4. Sunder Singh, Son Of Late Shri Mukh Ram, Ramsara,
Tehsil- Bhadra, District- Hanumangarh
5. Mohar Singh, Son Of Shri Gangajal, Malsisar, Tehsil-
Bhadra, District- Hanumangarh
6. Balveer Singh, Son Of Shri Maniram, Shanker Mandori,
Tehsil And District- Sirsa Haryana
7. Nirmala, Daughter Of Late Shri Mukhram, Wife Of Shri
Suresh, Kiradabada, Tehsil- Bhadra, At Present Resident
Of Associated Road Carriers Limited, Archouse Dn 55-10-
4, Plot No. 6A, Patta Mata Industrial
8. Savitri, Daughter Of Late Shri Mukhram, Wife Of Shri
Vinod Kumar, Kirdabada, Tehsil- Bhadra, At Present Of S-
4-275/b, Plot No. 76/b, Kamla Nagar, Vanaspatipuram,
Hyderbad- 500 070.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukul Singhvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria
Mr. Kan Singh Oad
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 04/09/2023
[2023:RJ-JD:28025] (2 of 4) [CMA-2556/2016]
The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by
the Appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated
27.06.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as the
learned Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 9/2015 (CIS No. 9/2015)
whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and
awarded Rs. 5,22,596/- as compensation.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are
that the claimants-respondents filed a claim petition before the
learned Tribunal stating inter alia that on 11.05.2014, on account
of accident between the jeep bearing no. HR 45A 9191 and a pick
up bearing no. HR 57 9010, Mukhram died. The claimants claimed
a compensation of Rs. 47,12,500/-. The claim petition was partly
allowed and Rs. 5,22,596 were awarded as compensation to the
claimants-respondents. Aggrieved by the said judgment and
award, the Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the
present appeal.
3. Mr. Mukul Singhvi, learned counsel representing the
Appellant-Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal
has erred in passing the impugned award. It is submitted that the
FIR was filed after a delay of 4 days and no justifiable reason was
given for the same. It is further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has erroneously fixed the liability on the Appellant-
Insurance Company and has not considered the aspect that there
was contributory negligence on part of driver of the jeep. It is also
[2023:RJ-JD:28025] (3 of 4) [CMA-2556/2016]
submitted that the multiplier applied for assessing the
compensation is also excessive. It is submitted that the deceased
was above 60 years of age and as such, a multiplier of 5 should
have been applied instead of 9 for calculating the amount of
compensation.
4. Per contra, Mr. Rakesh Matoria and Mr. Kan Singh Oad,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal,
after considering the entire evidence on record has rightly passed
the impugned judgment and award and thus, no interference is
warranted.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have
perused the material available on record.
6. On a perusal of the material available on record as well as
the impugned judgment and award, it is clear that the deceased-
Mukhram met with the accident on 11.05.2014 and he was
admitted in Astha Hospital, Sirsa and remained hospitalized till
14.05.2014. Thereafter, he was referred to Monilek Hospital,
Jaipur on 13.05.2014 and on 18.05.2014, he died during the
course of his treatment. The aforesaid factual position is reason
enough to justify the delay in filing of FIR.
7. I have perused the findings on issues no. 1 & 2 given by the
learned Tribunal based on oral and documentary evidence from
which it is clear that Mohar Singh, the driver of pick up bearing
no. HR 57 9010 while driving in a rash and negligent manner hit
the Max Jeep bearing no. HR 45A 9191, which was parked, due to
[2023:RJ-JD:28025] (4 of 4) [CMA-2556/2016]
which the deceased who was sitting in the jeep sustained injuries.
Thus, it evident that there is no contributory negligence on part of
the driver of the jeep as the jeep was rightly parked.
8. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the multiplier applied in awarding compensation is
excessive, I have gone through the record. The claimants, in their
claim petition have mentioned that the deceased was aged 52
years. The respondents have claimed that the age of deceased is
over 60 years. However, no evidence is produced in support of this
contention. AW-3-Dr. Rajnish Narula has opined that the deceased
was about 60 years of age at the time of his death. As per the
ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, the
multiplier to be applied for age group 55-60 years is 9.
9. In view of the above, I find that the judgment and award
passed by the learned Tribunal is well reasoned and therefore,
warrants no interference.
10. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
11. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
c-1-CPGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
