Rajasthan High Court

The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Vimla Devi And Others on 13 March, 2024

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

[2024:RJ-JP:12375]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2221/2016

The New India Assurance Company Limited. Through Regional
Manager , Regional Office Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur
(Insurance Company of Vehicle No.GJ 12Y-9234)
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1. Smt Vimla Devi W/o Late Shri Rohitash, aged about 37 years,
2. Suman d/o Late Shri Rohitash, Aged about 20 years,
3. Satish S/o Late Shri Rohitash, aged about 17 years (Minor
through natural guardian mother Smt. Vimla Devi)
4. Monika D/o Late Shri Rohitash, aged about 12 years, (Minor
through natural guardian mother Smt. Vimla Devi)
5. Smt. Patasi Devi W/o Shri Sadhuram, aged about 59 years,
6. Sadhuram S/o Shri Richpal, aged about 63 years,
All R/o Village Gordhanpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                   ---Respondents/Claimants

7. Mesaram S/o Shri Dhannaram, R/o Siyalo Ka Dera, Bamarla, Police Station Sedwa, Tehsil Chatan, District Barmer, Rajasthan (Driver of Vehicle No.GJ 12-Y-9234)

8. Shambhu S/o Shri Dhama Bhai, R/o Padana, Police Station Gandhi Dham, District Kach Bhuj, Gujrat.

(Registered Owner of Vehicle No.GJ 12-Y-9234)

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3898/2016

1. Smt Vimla Devi W/o Late Shri Rohitash, aged about 36 years,

2. Suman d/o Late Shri Rohitash, Aged about 19 years,

3. Satish S/o Late Shri Rohitash, aged about 17 years

4. Monika D/o Late Shri Rohitash, aged about 11 years,

5. Smt. Patashi Devi W/o Shri Sadhuram, aged about 58 years,

6. Sadhuram S/o Shri Richpal, aged about 62 years, Appellant Nos.3 and 4 are minor through their natural guardian mother Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Late Rohitash All R/o Village Gordhanpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Mesaram S/o Shri Dhannaram, R/o Siyalo Ka Dera, Bamarla,

[2024:RJ-JP:12375] (2 of 6) [CMA-2221/2016]

Police Station Sedwa, Tehsil Chantan, District Barmer, Rajasthan (Driver of Heavy Vehicles and used to do agricultural work Vehicle No.GJ 12-Y-9234)

2. Shambhu S/o Shri Dhama Bhai, R/o Padana, Police Station Gandhi Dham, District Kach Bhuj, Gujrat.

(Owner - Vehicle No.GJ 12-Y-9234)

3. The New India Assurance Company Limited. Having its Regional Office at Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur through its Regional Manager (Insured Vehicle No.GJ 12Y-9234, Policy effective from 02.04.2008 to 01.04.2009)

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. V. P. Mathur, Adv. for Insurance Company For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur, Adv. for Claimants

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 13/03/2024

The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and

award dated 15.03.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim

Case No.142/2012 titled as "Vimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Mesaram &

Ors.", whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim

petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.7,74,000/- along with interest

@ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e.

w.e.f. 23.03.2012 as compensation in favour of the claimants.

CMA No.2221/2016 has been filed by the Insurance

Company challenging the judgment & award passed by the

Tribunal on the various grounds, whereas CMA No.3898/2016 has

been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal.

[2024:RJ-JP:12375] (3 of 6) [CMA-2221/2016]

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2221/2016:-Learned

counsel for the Insurance Company submits that judgment and

award dated 15.03.2016 passed by the Tribunal is against the

record and material available on record. Learned counsel for the

Insurance Company also submits that the Tribunal wrongly

considered the income of the deceased as Rs.4500/- per month.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that the

Tribunal wrongly considered the age of the deceased as 24 years.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that as

per the driving license, (Ex.13A) date of birth of deceased was

01.07.1966. So, the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 18.

So, the judgment and award of the Tribunal be modified

accordingly.

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3898/2016:-Learned

counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal had considered

the income of the deceased as Rs.4500/- per month. As per

evidence, deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. So,

income of the deceased be calculated accordingly. Learned counsel

for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal had not awarded

any amount towards future prospects. As per the age of the

deceased, claimants are entitled to 40% of the deceased's income

towards future prospects. Learned counsel for the claimants also

submits that the Tribunal awarded a very meager amount of

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No.1,

Rs.25,000/- (Rs.5,000/- each) to claimant Nos. 2 to 6 towards

love and affection, whereas it should be Rs. 40,000/- for each

claimant. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the

[2024:RJ-JP:12375] (4 of 6) [CMA-2221/2016]

Tribunal awarded a very meager amount of Rs.10,000/- towards

funeral expenses, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. Learned

counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal has not

awarded any amount towards loss of estate, whereas it should be

Rs.15,000/-. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal be modified.

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 regarding income of the

deceased, claimants had not submitted any conclusive proof that

he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. So, in my considered

opinion, the Tribunal rightly calculated the notional income of the

deceased as Rs.4500/- per month, but the Tribunal has wrongly

applied the multiplier of 18, whereas it should be applied on the

basis of statement of deceased's wife regarding his age. As per

her statement, at the time of accident, deceased was 33 years of

age. So, multiplier should be applied of 16 should be applied

instead of 18. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards

future prospects, whereas it should be 40% of the deceased's

income. The Tribunal has committed an error in granting meager

amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant

No.1, Rs.25,000/- (Rs.5,000/- each) to claimant Nos. 2 to 6

towards love and affection, whereas it should be Rs. 40,000/- for

each claimant. The Tribunal awarded a very meager amount of

Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, whereas it should be

Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal has also not awarded any amount

[2024:RJ-JP:12375] (5 of 6) [CMA-2221/2016]

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.4500/-

            Annual Income                            Rs.4500X 12 = 54,000/-
     1/4 is to be deducted for                    54,000 - 13,500 = 40,500/-
     personal expenses of the
             deceased
    According to the age of the                      40,500 X 16 = 6,48,000/-
   deceased, Multiplier 16 to be
             applied
       Future Prospects                           Rs.6,48,000 + Rs.2,59,200/-
 (40% of the deceased's income)                         =Rs.9,07,200/-
 Loss of consortium and love and                             Rs.2,40,000/-

           (40,000 X 6)
           Funeral expenses
                                                               Rs.15,000/-
            Loss of Estate
                                                               Rs.15,000/-
                  Total
                                                            Rs.11,77,200/-
   Less amount awarded by the
            Tribunal                                         Rs.7,74,000/-

        Enhanced Amount of
           compensation                          Rs.11,77,200 - Rs.7,74,000 =

                                                             Rs.4,03,200/-

      The    claimants        are     entitled       to   get     a    further   sum   of

Rs.4,03,200/- as compensation. The Insurance Company is

directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.4,03,200/-

(Rs.11,77,200/- - Rs.7,74,000/-) 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

@ 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim

petition till the actual payment is made.

[2024:RJ-JP:12375] (6 of 6) [CMA-2221/2016]

In the result, appeals filed by the Insurance Company as well

as the claimants are partly allowed as indicated above.

Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain