Rajasthan High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company ... vs Makhanlal S/O Shri Sukharam on 6 May, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:20890]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1892/2020
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Having
Registered Office At Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Center - Saket,
New Delhi - 110017 And Having Its Earlier Regional Office At
Third Floor, A-13, Hanuman Nagar, Khatipura, Sirsi Road, Jaipur
And Having Its Current Regional Office 101, First Floor, Arg
Corporate Park, Gopalbadi, Ajmer Road Flyover, Above Prem
Motors, Jaipur- 302006 Through Its Constituent Attorney.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Makhanlal S/o Shri Sukharam, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Balesar, Tehsil Viratnagar, District- Jaipur (Raj)
2. Sumitra Devi W/o Shri Mahanlal, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Balesar, Tehsil Viratnagar, District- Jaipur (Raj)
3. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Bhivaram, R/o Tavedi, Tehsil
Viratnagar, District- Jaipur (Raj) (Driver Vehicle Bus No.
Rj-32-Pa-2219)
4. (A) Suresh Chand Saini S/o Shri Manguram, R/o Dhani
Shivaji Ki, Thanagaji, District-Alwar (Raj), (Presently
Registered Owner Vehicle Bus No. Rj-32-Pa-2219)
(B)Suresh Hari Singh S/o Shribhagwan Singh, R/o Village
Badnagar, Dhanidullesinghki, Tehsil-Kotputli, District-
Jaipur. (Presently Power Of Attorney Vehicel Bus No.rj-32-
Pa-2219)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajdeep Rathore for Mr. C S Jodha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 06/05/2024
The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-Iffco Tokio General
Insurance Company (for short 'the Insurance Company')
[2024:RJ-JP:20890] (2 of 4) [CMA-1892/2020]
aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.02.2020 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shahpura, Jaipur (for short
'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.83/2016,(NCV No.1663/2016)
whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,44,000/- along
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim
petition as compensation in favour of respondents-claimants (for
short claimants).
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the
impugned judgment and award dated 20.02.2020 passed by the
Tribunal is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction and perverse to
the well-settled proposition of law. Learned counsel for the
Insurance Company further submits that the present case relates
to a child who died at the age of 12 years. Learned counsel for the
Insurance Company further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly
considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 30,000/- per annum
on notional basis and wrongly applied the multiplier of 17. Learned
counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that in various
pronouncement it is clearly stated if the age group of child is
between 10 to 15 years and death occurred then amount of
compensation should be Rs. 2,25,000/-. Learned counsel for the
Insurance Company further submits that the Tribunal has
committed an error in awarding 40% towards future prospects.
So, judgment and award of the Tribunal be modified accordingly.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
"Rajendra Singh and Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company
Ltd. and Ors." in Civil Appeal No. 2624/2020 decided on
18.06.2020.
[2024:RJ-JP:20890] (3 of 4) [CMA-1892/2020]
Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered
the income of the deceased as Rs. 30,000/- per annum and rightly
awarded 40% towards future prospects. So, judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference of this
court. So, appeal be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
"Kishan Gopal and Anr. Vs. Lala and Ors." in Civil Appeal
No. 7137/2013 decided on 26.08.2013, and the judgment
passed by this Court in the case of "Hansraj Vs. Mukesh Nath
and Ors." in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1334/2022
decided on 09.04.2024.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the Insurance Company as well as the learned counsel
for the claimants.
It is an admitted position that the present case relates to the
death of a child who was 12 years of age. So, in my considered
opinion, the Tribunal has not committed an error while calculating
the income of the deceased-child as Rs. 30,000/- per annum on
notional basis. The Tribunal has committed an error in applying
the multiplier according to the age of deceased's mother.
According to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal should have
applied the multiplier of 18 and if multiplier of 18 is applied then
compensation is much higher then the awarded amount. The
Tribunal has rightly awarded 40% towards future prospects. So, in
my considered opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error
[2024:RJ-JP:20890] (4 of 4) [CMA-1892/2020]
in awarding the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 7,44,000/-. So
the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed,
which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Tahir/154
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
