Rajasthan High Court
Smt Sangeeta Shrivastava And Ors vs Bablu Singh And Ors on 19 February, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:8275]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2153/2017
The National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office Jeevan
Nidhi Second Floor, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road,
Jaipur, Through Its Constituted Attorney.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Sangeeta Srivastav W/o Late Dr. Santosh Kumar
Srivastav, aged 46 years
2. Sareshth Kumar Srivastav S/o Late Dr. Santosh Kumar
Srivastav, aged 21 years, Through Attorney Holder - Mother
Smt. Sangeeta Srivastav
3. Vishesh Kumar Srivastav S/o Late Dr. Santosh Kumar
Srivastav, aged 19 years,
All Residents of 26, Harvilas Sharda Marg Colony, Civil Lines,
District Ajmer.
....Claimants/Respondents
4. Bablu Singh S/o Shri Shankar Singh, R/o 78, Pokhariyon Ki
Dhani, Hokra, Via Pushkar, District Ajmer. Driver Of Vehicle No.
Rj-01-Ga-7354
5. Navratan Maheshwari S/o Shri Sita Ram Maheshwari, By
Caste Masheshwari, R/o 138, L.i.c. Colony, Vaishali Nagar,
District Ajmer. Registered Owner Of Vehicle.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2670/2017
1. Smt. Sangeeta Shrivastava W/o Late Dr. Shri Santosh
Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 48 years,
2. Shreshtha Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late Dr. Shri Santosh
Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 21 years,, Through Power
of attorney holder and mother Smt. Sangeeta Shrivastava
3. Vishesh Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late Dr. Shri Santosh
Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 19 years,
All Resident of 26, Harvilas Sharda Marg Colony, Civil
Lines, Distt. Ajmer
----Appellants
Versus
1. Bablu Singh S/o Shri Shankar Singh, 78, Pokhriyon Ki
(Downloaded on 01/03/2024 at 09:34:55 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:8275] (2 of 7) [CMA-2153/2017]
Dhani, Hokra Via Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer Driver Of Vehicle
No. Rj-01-Ga-7354
2. Navratna Maheshwari S/o Shri Sitaram Maheshwari, B/c
Maheshwari, 138, L.i.c. Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Distt.
Ajmer Registered Owner Of Vehicle
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Through Local
Branch Manager, Local Branch Office Near Punjab National
Bank, Kachhari Road, Ajmer Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raaj Pal Chaudhary, Adv. for
Insurance Company.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Jain, Adv. for Claimants
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv. for Owner
Mr. Ravi Singh, Adv. for Mr. Jai
Prakash Gupta, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 19/02/2024
The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and
award dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Ajmer (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.528/14
titled as "Sangeeta Srivastav & Ors. Vs. Bablu Singh & Ors.",
whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, has
awarded a sum of Rs.47,44,130/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 23.09.14 as
compensation in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 3-claimants
(for short' the claimants') and the Insurance Company and
respondent Nos.4 and 5 in CMA No.2153/2017 have been held
liable to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally.
(Downloaded on 01/03/2024 at 09:34:55 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:8275] (3 of 7) [CMA-2153/2017]
CMA No.2153/2017 has been filed by the Insurance
Company challenging the judgment & award passed by the
Tribunal on the various grounds, whereas CMA No.2670/2017 has
been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2153/2017:-Learned
counsel for the Insurance Company submits that judgment dated
08.02.2017 passed by the Tribunal is absolutely illegal, without
jurisdiction and against the facts of the case. Learned counsel for
the Insurance Company also submits that the Tribunal had not
considered the arguments advanced by the Insurance Company
that neither the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid
and effective driving license nor the vehicle in question was being
plight with valid and effective route permit. Learned counsel for
the Insurance Company also submits that Insurance Company got
served the notice through its counsel (Ex.NA.3/2) for producing
the permit but no such permit was produced. Learned counsel for
the Insurance Company also submits that the Insurance Company
also adduced the evidence of NAW-1-Rajendra Chawla. So, the
Tribunal wrongly hold the Insurance Company liable to pay the
amount of compensation. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal
be set aside.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed
reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Amrit Paul Singh &
Anr. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited &
Ors. reported in 2018 ACJ 1768 and (2) National Insurance
(Downloaded on 01/03/2024 at 09:34:55 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:8275] (4 of 7) [CMA-2153/2017]
Company Limited Vs. Challa Bharathamma & Ors. in Civil
Appeal Nos.6178-6179/2004 decided on 21.09.2004.
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2670/2017-Learned
counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal wrongly
applied two multipliers for determination of compensation; one till
date of retirement and another multiplier after retirement, it is
erroneous. At the time of accident, the deceased was about 54
years of age, so, multiplier of 11 should be applied. Learned
counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal wrongly
deducted 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the
deceased, whereas it should be 1/4th. Learned counsel for the
claimants also submits that the Tribunal awarded a very meagre
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss of consortium to
claimant No.1, Rs.10,000/- to each claimant Nos.2 and 3 towards
love and affection, whereas it should be Rs. 40,000/- for each
claimants. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the
Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards loss of estate,
whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. Learned counsel for the
claimants also submits that the Tribunal wrongly deducted the
amount regarding income tax and surcharge. So, judgment and
award of the Tribunal be modified accordingly.
Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Valli Vs.
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. reported in AIR
online 2022 SC 158.
(Downloaded on 01/03/2024 at 09:34:55 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:8275] (5 of 7) [CMA-2153/2017]
Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle submits that the
matter be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication
regarding permit of the vehicle.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for
the respondents.
It is an admitted position that no permit was submitted
during the trial. The Insurance Company had got served the notice
to Navratan Maheshwari, who is owner of the vehicle to produce
the permit but said owner had not submitted the permit and had
not adduced any evidence to the effect that he had the valid
permit of the offending vehicle. So, in my considered opinion, the
Tribunal wrongly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company
for paying the amount of compensation to the claimants. As per
the pronouncement of judgment relied by the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company; Insurance Company should first pay the
amount of compensation and then it has right to recover the
same. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is required to be
modified accordingly.
The Tribunal had wrongly determined the compensation by
applying two multipliers; one till date of retirement and another
multiplier after retirement. The deceased age was about 54 years
at the time of accident, so, multiplier of 11 should be applied. The
Tribunal had not granted any amount towards the future
prospects. Since, the deceased was a Government Servant
(Permanent Job) and he was about 54 years of age at the time of
[2024:RJ-JP:8275] (6 of 7) [CMA-2153/2017]
accident, claimants are entitled to get 15% amount towards future
prospects. The Tribunal had wrongly awarded Rs.1,00,000/-
towards the loss of consortium to claimant No.1 and Rs.10,000/-
to each claimant Nos.2 and 3 towards love and affection, whereas
it should be Rs. 40,000/- for each claimants. The Tribunal had also
wrongly awarded Rs.25,000/- towards the funeral expenses,
whereas it should be Rs.15,000. The Tribunal had not awarded any
amount towards loss of estate, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-.
So, the judgment of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as
under:-
Monthly income Rs.90,066/-
Annual Income 90,066X12=10,80,792/-
According to the age of the 10,80,792 X 11=1,18,88,712/-
deceased, Multiplier 11 to be
applied
1/3 is to be deducted for 1,18,88,712 - 39,62,904/- =
personal expenses of the 79,25,808/-
deceased
Since, the deceased was a 79,25,808+11,88,871/- =
Government Servant and his 91,14,679.2/-
age was determined about 54 (round off Rs.91,14,679/-)
years, add 15% towards future
prospects
Less 30% Income Tax and 3% 91,14,679/- - 28,16,436/-
surcharge (27,34,404+82,032/-) =
62,98,243/-
Loss of consortium to claimants Rs.1,20,000/-
No. 1 to 3 (40,000 X 3)
Funeral expenses (+)
Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate
Rs.15,000/-
Total
Rs.64,48,243/-
Less amount awarded by the
Tribunal Rs.47,44,130/-
Enhanced Amount of
compensation 64,48,243 - 47,44,130=
[2024:RJ-JP:8275] (7 of 7) [CMA-2153/2017]
Rs.17,04,113/-
The claimants are entitled to get a further sum of
Rs.17,04,113/- as compensation. The Insurance Company is
directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.17,04,113/-
(64,48,243 - 47,44,130) with the Tribunal within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On
deposition of the said amount, the claimants shall be entitled to
withdraw the same. The enhanced amount shall carry @ 6%
interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the
actual payment is made.
In the result, appeals filed by the Insurance Company and
the claimants are partly allowed.
Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount of
compensation to the claimants and then to recover the same from
the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain
unchanged. Impugned judgment and award is modified
accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /175-176
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
