Rajasthan High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Ameer Chand Jain And Anr on 9 May, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:21768]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1810/2017
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Anand Bhawan,
Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ameer Chand S/o Shri Mahavir Prasad Jain, R/o Care Of
Jain Kiraya Store, Alwar Road, Opposite Service Station,
Kishangarh Baas, District Alwar. Premanent R/o Opposite
Geeta Press, Shikari Pada, Munshi Bazaar, Alwar
2. Smt. Santosh Jain W/o Shri Ameer Chand Jain, R/o Care
Of Jain Kiraya Store, Alwar Road, Opposite Service
Station, Kishangarh Baas, District Alwar. Premanent R/o
Opposite Geeta Press, Shikari Pada, Munshi Bazaar, Alwar
3. Totaram S/o Shri Kanaram, R/o Gram Bahadurpur, Tehsil
Kishangarh Baas, District Alwar Presently Residing At 200
Foot Road, Jat Colony, Ward No. 15, Alwar Driver Of
Vehicle Tempo No. Rj 32 Ga 2391
4. Rajendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Shyamlal Yadav, R/o
Gram Bakhtala, Tehsil Kishangarh Baas, District Alwar
Registered Owner Of Vehicle Tempo No. Rj-32-Ga-2391
5. Ram Prasad S/o Shri Ramswaroop, R/o Bheem Nagar
Colony, Rajbhata, Behind Saiyyed Ki Bagichi, Khundanpuri
Road, Alwar Purchaser Of Vehicle Tempo No. Rj 32 Ga
2391
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amar Nath Pareek, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sweta Soni, Adv. on behalf of
Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 09/05/2024
The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company
[2024:RJ-JP:21768] (2 of 3) [CMA-1810/2017]
(for short 'the Insurance Company') aggrieved by the judgment
and award dated 02.01.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Alwar (for short 'The Tribunal') in Case No.530/2009,
whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.16,05,000/- along
with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim
petition as compensation in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2-
claimants (for short 'the claimants').
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the
Tribunal while passing the judgment and award dated 02.01.2017
had not considered the evidence led by the parties in right
perspective. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is required to
be set aside. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also
submits that the Tribunal had committed error in applying the
multiplier of 17, whereas multiplier should be applied according to
the age of parents. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
also submits that the Tribunal had committed error in awarding
50% of the deceased's income towards future prospects because
deceased was not having a permanent job. So, judgment and
award of the Tribunal be modified accordingly.
Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance
Company and submits that the Tribunal rightly considered the age
of the deceased while calculating the claim amount and rightly
applied the multiplier of 17. Learned counsel for the claimants also
submits that deceased was working in a Modtech Material
Handling Projects Private Limited Company and he was getting
salary of Rs.20,537/- per month but the Tribunal had considered
the deceased's income as Rs.10,000/- per month. So, no
[2024:RJ-JP:21768] (3 of 3) [CMA-1810/2017]
interference is required in the Tribunal's judgment. So, appeal filed
by the Insurance Company be dismissed.
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 deceased was 28 years of age
and according to which, the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier
of 17. As per the age of the deceased, there is no need to consider
the age of the parents of the deceased while calculating the
award. The Tribunal had rightly considered the income of the
deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal had also rightly
considered 50% of the deceased's income towards future
prospects. So, present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be
dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /07
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
