Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dhagla Ram And Anr vs Dinesh Sankhla And Ors. ... on 8 October, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:41196]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 452/2015
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Manager, Udaipur
through its Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Co. Ltd., Pal Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Prahlad S/o Shri Bhiyan Ram, aged 51 years,
2. Smt. Sohani Devi W/o Prahlad, aged 48 years,
Both residents of Babra, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali.
3. Dinesh SankhlaS/o Shri Teja Ram, Resident of Raas, Tehsil
Jaitaran, District Pali.
4. Sohanlal S/o Mishri Lal, Resident of Raas, Tehsil Jaitaran,
District Pali.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1947/2014
Ghanshyam S/o Amra Ram, aged about 27 years, Resident of
422, Regaron Ka Mohalla, Giri, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali
(Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Dinesh Sankhla S/o Tejaram, Resident of Raas, Tehsil
Jaitaran, District Pali (Rajasthan)
2. Sohanlal S/o Mishrilal, Resident of Raas, Tehsil Jaitaran,
District Pali (Rajasthan)
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager,
12-D, Residency Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1948/2014
1. Prahlad S/o Bhinyaram, aged about 51 years,
2. Smt. Sohni Devi W/o Prahlad, aged about 48 years,
Both residents of Babra, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali
(Rajasthan)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Dinesh Sankhla S/o Tejaram, Resident of Raas, Tehsil
Jaitaran, District Pali (Rajasthan)
(Downloaded on 09/10/2024 at 09:50:52 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:41196] (2 of 17) [CMA-452/2015]
2. Sohanlal S/o Mishrilal, Resident of Raas, Tehsil Jaitaran,
District Pali (Rajasthan)
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager,
12-D, Residency Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1949/2014
Kumari Sangeeta D/o Prahlad, aged about 21 years, Resident of
Babra, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Dinesh Sankhla S/o Tejaram, Resident of Raas, Tehsil
Jaitaran, District Pali (Rajasthan)
2. Sohanlal S/o Mishrilal, Resident of Raas, Tehsil Jaitaran,
District Pali (Rajasthan)
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager,
12-D, Residency Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1950/2014
Pakash Chand S/o Amra Ram, aged about 25 years, Resident of
422 Regaron Ka Mohalla, Giri, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali
(Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Dinesh Sankhla S/o Teja Ram, Resident of Raas, Tehsil
Jaitaran, District Pali (Rajasthan)
2. Sohanlal S/o Mishrilal, Resident of Raas, Tehsil Jaitaran,
District Pali (Rajasthan)
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager,
12-D, Residency Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1952/2014
1. Dhagla Ram S/o Punaram, aged 50 years,
2. Mayadevi W/o Dhagla Ram, aged 45 years,
Both residents of Jaitaran, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali,
Rajasthan
----Appellants
Versus
(Downloaded on 09/10/2024 at 09:50:52 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:41196] (3 of 17) [CMA-452/2015]
1. Dinesh Sankhla S/o Tejaram, Resident of Raas, Tehsil
Jaitaran, District Pali (Rajasthan)
2. Sohanlal S/o Mishrilal, Resident of Raas, Tehsil Jaitaran,
District Pali (Rajasthan)
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager,
12-D, Residency Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 450/2015
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Manager, Udaipur
through its Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Co. Ltd., Pal Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Prakash Chand S/o Amra Ram, aged 25 years, Resident of
422, Regaro Ka Mohalla, Giri, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali.
2. Dinesh Sankhla S/o Shri Teja Ram, Resident of Raas, Tehsil
Jaitaran, District Pali.
3. Sohan Lal S/o Mishri Lal, Resident of Raas, Tehsil Jaitaran,
District Pali.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 455/2015
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Manager, Udaipur
through its Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Co. Ltd., Pal Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ganshyam S/o Amra Ram, aged 27 years, Resident of 422,
Regaro Ka Mohalla, Giri, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali.
2. Dinesh Sankhla S/o Shri Teja Ram, Resident of Raas, Tehsil
Jaitaran, District Pali.
3. Sohan Lal S/o Mishri Lal, Resident of Raas, Tehsil Jaitaran,
District Pali
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 456/2015
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Manager, Udaipur
through its Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Co. Ltd., Pal Road, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
(Downloaded on 09/10/2024 at 09:50:52 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:41196] (4 of 17) [CMA-452/2015]
Versus
1. Miss. Sangeeta D/o Prahlad, aged 21 years, Resident of
Babra, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali.
2. Dinesh Sankhla S/o Shri Teja Ram, Resident of Raas, Tehsil
Jaitaran, District Pali.
3. Sohan Lal S/o Mishri Lal, Resident of Raas, Tehsil Jaitaran,
District Pali.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Kaushik, for Insurance Co.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Panwar, for complainant.
Mr. D.S. Udawat & Mr. Chandan Singh
Jodha.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Judgment
08/10/2024
1. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant/non-
claimant insurance company and claimants under Section 173 of
the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award dated
25.11.2014 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Jaitaran, District Pali in MAC Cases Nos.154/2011,
155/2011, 156/2011, 157/2011 and 60/2012, whereby the
learned Tribunal has partly allowed 4 claim petitions filed by
respective claimants and awarded compensation in favour of
respective claimants. The liability to satisfy the award was
fastened upon all the non-claimants jointly and severally. The
learned Tribunal, however, rejected the MAC Case No.60/2012,
preferred by claimants Dhaglaram and Maya Devi claiming
compensation on account of death of their daughter deceased
Guddi @ Kirti.
2. All these nine appeals, arising out of same accident, are
being decided by this common judgment, however, the facts
[2024:RJ-JD:41196] (5 of 17) [CMA-452/2015]
illustratively taken of CMA No.452/2015 : United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Prahlad & Ors.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants
filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988
claiming compensation on account of death of Sh. Sanjay Kumar,
Kirti and Richa and the injuries suffered by the injured claimants.
In the claim petitions, it was inter-alia stated by the claimants that
on 11.05.2011, the claimants boarded in vehicle Tavera bearing
registration number RJ-36-UA-0646 for attending Baran from
Babra to Jodhpur. The aforesaid vehicle was being plied by Dinesh
Sankhla, non-claimant No.1/driver rashly and negligently. In the
evening at about 07:00 pm, near Bilara, the aforesaid vehicle
collided with Indica Car, as a result of which, the occupants of
Tavera vehicle viz. Sanjay Kumar, Kirti, Richa died and Sangeeta
sustained grievous injuries. The vehicle was owned by non-
claimant No.2 Sohanlal and the same was insured with non-
claimant No.3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of
accident.
4. The claim petition was contested by the non-claimants No.1
and 2 by filing their reply while denying the contents of the claim
petitions and it was stated that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of driver of Indica Car.
5. The non-claimant No.3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed
its reply to the claim petitions stating therein that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Indica Car
bearing registration number RJ-36-CA-2165. The involvement of
the offending vehicle i.e. Tavera vehicle was denied, however, the
fact that the vehicle was insured with it, was admitted. It was,
[2024:RJ-JD:41196] (6 of 17) [CMA-452/2015]
however, stated that there was breach of policy conditions,
inasmuch as the private vehicle was being used for transportation
and the passengers travelling in the said vehicle were much
beyond the sitting capacity. Thus, by filing the reply to the claim
petitions, it was prayed that the insurance company was not liable
to pay the compensation.
6. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the
parties, framed issues in all five claim petitions. In support of their
claim petitions, the claimants examined AW.1 Ghanshyam, AW.2
Prakash Chand, AW.3 Prahlad, AW.4 Sangeeta, AW.5 Dhaglaram
and AW.6 Bakhtaram. The claimants exhibited 185 documents and
in rebuttal evidence, statements of AW.3 Prahlad and AW.7
Dilipraj were recorded. On behalf of non-claimants, NAW.1
Ranchhod Chauhan, NAW.2 Vijay Kumar Gaur, NAW.3 Sohanlal,
NAW.4 Dinesh Kumar were examined and the non-claimant
insurance company exhibited Ex.A/1- insurance policy, report of
the investigator as Ex.A/2 and copy statement of Prahlad as Ex.A/
3.
7. The learned Tribunal thereafter heard final arguments of the
parties and after considering the evidence produced before it, vide
judgment and award impugned dated 25.11.2014 proceeded to
partly allow the claim petitions filed by respective claimants and
awarded compensation while fastening the liability upon all the
non-claimants along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing
of claim petitions. The learned Tribunal, however, rejected the
MAC Case No.60/2012, preferred by claimants Dhaglaram and
Maya Devi claiming compensation on account of death of their
daughter deceased Guddi @ Kirti.
[2024:RJ-JD:41196] (7 of 17) [CMA-452/2015]
8. Aggrieved by judgment and award dated 25.11.2014,
appellant/non-claimant No.3 insurance company and
appellants/claimants have preferred these appeals.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/non-
claimant No.3 Insurance Company submits that in the reply to
claim petitions, on behalf of insurance company, specific plea was
raised that the vehicle insured with it was a private vehicle and
the same could not have been plied for hire and reward. Learned
counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits that on
behalf of insurance company, NAW.1 Ranchhod Chauhan, Officer
of the Insurance Company and NAW.2 Vijay Kumar Gaur,
investigator who investigated the matter were examined. While
relying upon the testimony of NAW.2 Vijay Kumar Gaur, learned
counsel for the appellant submits that NAW.2 recorded the
statements of relatives of victim, wherein it was clearly stated that
the vehicle was hired for Rs.4500/- and a sum of Rs.1000/- was
paid in advance and the rest amount was to be paid later i.e. after
completion of the journey. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that while deciding the Issue No.3 in this regard, the
learned Tribunal though has accepted the contentions raised by
the insurance company, however, qua the payment of Rs.1000/-,
the learned Tribunal observed that the aforesaid sum was paid
towards fuel charges and thus the vehicle was not used on hire
and reward. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there
was specific condition that the vehicle shall not be plied for hire
and reward, however, the learned Tribunal has not considered the
evidence led by the insurance company to prove the breach of
terms and conditions of the policy.
[2024:RJ-JD:41196] (8 of 17) [CMA-452/2015]
10. Learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company
further submits that the sitting capacity of the insured vehicle was
9+1, whereas as per the FIR and facts pleaded by the claimants in
their claim petition 13-14 persons were travelling in the vehicle.
Learned counsel for the appellant thus submits that there was
violation of conditions of the policy. Learned counsel for the
appellant further submits that as per the insurance policy and
limitation clause, the insurance company was not liable to pay the
compensation in the case of hire and reward. Learned counsel for
the appellant- insurance company laid much emphasis upon
Exhibit A/2, which is the statement of witness Prahlad, wherein
said Prahlad has accepted that vehicle was taken on hire and
reward basis. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance
company submits that said Prahlad, as an afterthought stated that
the concerned authority of the insurance company had come to
him with blank papers and he had only put in his signatures on
the papers and he has not given any statement Ex.A/2, exhibited
by the insurance company.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company also
disputed the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of
claimants as the learned Tribunal has taken higher income into
consideration while deciding the said issue.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by
counsel for the insurance company. Learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the insurance company has utterly failed
to prove that the passengers of the vehicle had hired the vehicle
and in lieu of which some reward was paid to the driver. They also
[2024:RJ-JD:41196] (9 of 17) [CMA-452/2015]
submit that Exhibit-A/2, which is report prepared by the
investigator of the insurance company cannot be believed,
inasmuch as witness AW.5 Prahlad had category stated in his
statements before the learned Tribunal that he had signed on
blank papers when the investigator came to him with an intent to
settle the claim, however, he had not deposed anything before the
investigator.
13. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that while deciding
Claim Case No.156/2011, the multiplier applied by the learned
Tribunal is on lower side, which looking to age of deceased i.e. 24
years, highest multiplier ought to have been applied. Learned
counsel for the appellants/claimants further submits that deceased
Richa was earning Rs.6000/- per month by teaching work in a
private school, however, the learned Tribunal while quantifying the
compensation has taken into consideration the monthly income of
the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month. Learned counsel for the
appellants Learned counsel for the claimants submits that no
amount towards future prospects has been quantified and
awarded by the learned Tribunal.
13. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that while
deciding Claim Case No.154/2011, the multiplier applied by the
learned Tribunal is on lower side, which looking to age of deceased
i.e. 17 years, highest multiplier ought to have been applied.
Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants further submits that
deceased Sanjay Kumar was earning Rs.4000/- per month
through tuition, however, the learned Tribunal while quantifying
the compensation has taken into consideration the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month. Learned counsel
[2024:RJ-JD:41196] (10 of 17) [CMA-452/2015]
for the claimants submits that no amount towards future
prospects has been quantified and awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
14. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that while deciding
Claim Case No.155/2011, the multiplier applied by the learned
Tribunal is on lower side, which looking to age of deceased i.e. 23
years, highest multiplier ought to have been applied. Learned
counsel for the appellants/claimants further submits that deceased
Smt. Kirti was earning Rs.4000/- per month by giving tuition to
the students, however, the learned Tribunal while quantifying the
compensation has taken into consideration the monthly income of
the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month. Learned counsel for the
claimants submits that no amount towards future prospects has
been quantified and awarded by the learned Tribunal.
15. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that while deciding
Claim Case No.157/2011, the learned Tribunal has awarded a
meager amount of compensation for the injuries suffered by the
injured claimant in the accident. Learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant submits that a sum of Rs.4000/- has been
awarded for four injuries suffered by the claimant. Learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant remained
hospitalized for a period of two months and has undergone
surgical operation in right elbow, therefore, adequate
compensation deserves to be awarded in favour of claimant.
16. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that while
deciding the Claim Case No.60/2012, the learned Tribunal has
erred in rejecting the claim petition filed by the claimants. He
submits that the claimants being the parents of deceased Smt.
[2024:RJ-JD:41196] (11 of 17) [CMA-452/2015]
Kirti, were entitle to get compensation, however, the learned
Tribunal has rejected the claim petition on the ground that since
husband of the deceased has filed separate claim petition claiming
compensation and, therefore, they are not entitled to get any
compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants
submits that the claimants are entitled to get compensation
towards the loss of consortium.
17. In CMA No.452/2015 preferred by appellant- Insurance
Company, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
24.07.2015 while admitting the appeal stayed the execution of the
impugned judgment and award dated 25.11.2014 upon appellant
depositing a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as against the total awarded
sum of Rs.2,42,183/- within a period of one month from the date
of order. The amount on being deposited was ordered to be
disbursed to the claimant in terms of Tribunal's directions, subject
to claimant(s) furnishing an undertaking that in case the appeal
filed by the appellant insurance company is allowed, they will
refund back the said sum with interest @ 6% p.a.
18. In CMA No.450/2015 and 455/2015 preferred by appellant-
Insurance Company, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 24.07.2015 while admitting the appeal stayed the execution
of the impugned judgment and award dated 25.11.2014 upon
appellant depositing a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as against the total
awarded sum of Rs.4,47,000/- within a period of one month from
the date of order. The amount on being deposited was ordered to
be disbursed to the claimant in terms of Tribunal's directions,
subject to claimant(s) furnishing an undertaking that in case the
[2024:RJ-JD:41196] (12 of 17) [CMA-452/2015]
appeal filed by the appellant insurance company is allowed, they
will refund back the said sum with interest @ 6% p.a.
19. In CMA No.456/2015 preferred by appellant- Insurance
Company, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
24.07.2015 while admitting the appeal stayed the execution of the
impugned judgment and award dated 25.11.2014 upon appellant
depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- as against the total awarded sum
of Rs.83,135/- within a period of one month from the date of
order. The amount on being deposited was ordered to be
disbursed to the claimant in terms of Tribunal's directions, subject
to claimant(s) furnishing an undertaking that in case the appeal
filed by the appellant insurance company is allowed, they will
refund back the said sum with interest @ 6% p.a.
20. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties at length and have perused the material available on
record.
21. The Issue No.3 framed by the learned Tribunal reads as
under:
"3. vk;k foi{kh la-3 chek daiuh vius vfHkdFkuksa esa mBkbZ
xbZ vkifRr;ksa ds vuqlkj {kfriwfrZ vnk djus ds fy, nk;h ugha
gS\"
22. This Court finds that while deciding the Issue No.3, the
learned Tribunal has considered the arguments raised by the non-
claimant No.3 Insurance Company in its correct perspective. The
appellant/non-claimant No.3 has led much emphasis on Exhibit-A/
2, which are prepared by NAW.2 Vijay Kumar and Exhibit-A/3 i.e.
statement of Prahlad. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal
while deciding the issue No.3 has observed that NAW.3 Sohanlal,
in his statements stated that on account of acquaintance, Dinesh
[2024:RJ-JD:41196] (13 of 17) [CMA-452/2015]
(non-claimant No.1) took his vehicle to attend the marriage
ceremony of his friend, Ajay Kumar and that the vehicle was not
given on rent/hire and reward. The learned Tribunal has also
considered the statement of AW.3 Prahlad, wherein he specifically
stated that representative of insurance company obtained his
signatures on blank papers and a notice in this regard was also
issued by him though his counsel. This Court finds that the
learned Tribunal has also considered the arguments of the
insurance company with respect to number of persons travelling in
the vehicle beyond the prescribed number of persons insured. The
learned Tribunal has observed that travelling of excess passengers
in a vehicle can be violation of the M.V. Act, however, the same
cannot be considered a ground to exonerate the insurance
company from his liability. This Court finds that the learned
Tribunal considering the overall evidence led by the insurance
company has rightly observed that a sum of Rs.1000/- was
towards fuel charges and the same cannot be termed as a token
money towards rent or hire and reward. The driver of the
offending vehicle was having a valid and effective licence to ply
the vehicle. In the considered view of this Court, the learned
Tribunal has not committed any error while deciding the issue
No.3 against the appellant/non-claimant No.3 insurance company.
23. Accordingly and view of above discussion, this Court finds no
force in the appeals filed by the appellant/non-claimant No.3
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and, therefore, the misc. appeals
No.452/2015, 450/2015, 455/2015 and 456/2015 are dismissed.
Stay Applications are rejected and interim orders passed in these
appeals are vacated.
[2024:RJ-JD:41196] (14 of 17) [CMA-452/2015]
24. Insofar as CMA No.1948/2014 : Prahlad & Anr. v. Dinesh
Sankhla & Ors. is concerned, having regard to the submissions
made by counsel for the appellants/claimants, this Court is of the
view that monthly income of the deceased Sanjay Kumar, is to be
assessed as Rs.3770/- while considering him to be semiskilled
labour while deducting 1/2 towards personal expenses and adding
40% towards future prospects. The claimants are entitled to
receive enhanced compensation under the heads of loss of estate
and funeral expenses @ Rs.18,150/- each. The learned Tribunal
has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/-, which also deserves to
be enhanced to Rs.48,400/- each.
25. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, the instant misc.
appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants is partly allowed. The
judgment and award dated 25.11.2014 passed by learned Tribunal
in MAC Case No.154/2011 is modified accordingly and the
claimants are held entitled to get enhanced compensation as
under: -
S. No. Particulars Amount awarded
and enhanced by
this Court
1. Compensation under the head of loss of income Rs.5,70,024/-
Monthly Income Rs.3770/-
deduction 50% Rs. 1885/-
Rs. 1885/-
Add. 40% Future Pros. Rs. 754/-
Rs.2639/-
Rs.2639 x 12 x 18 =Rs.5,70,024/-
2. Consortium (Rs.48,400 x 2) Rs.96,800/-
3. Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/-
Grand Total Rs.7,03,124/-
Less amount awarded by learned Tribunal Rs.2,42,183/-
Rs.4,60,941/-
26. The appellants/claimants are thus held entitled to get
enhanced compensation of Rs.4,60,941/-. The enhanced amount
[2024:RJ-JD:41196] (15 of 17) [CMA-452/2015]
of compensation be paid to the claimants within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along
with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition,
as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The non-claimants shall pay
the enhanced amount jointly and severally.
27. Insofar as CMA No.1947/2014 : Ghanshyam v. Dinesh
Sankhla & Ors. CMA 1950/2014 : Prakash Chand v. Dinesh
Sankhla & Ors. are concerned, having regard to the submissions
made by counsel for the appellant/claimant, this Court is of the
opinion that monthly income of the deceased Smt. Rich and Smt.
Kirti, is to be assessed in view of judgment passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Kirti & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. : AIR 2021 SC 353 and, accordingly, while treating the
deceased as homemaker, their monthly income is assessed at
Rs.3770/- per month while deducting 1/2 towards personal
expenses while adding 40% towards future prospects. The
claimants are entitled to receive enhanced compensation under
the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses @ Rs.18,100/-
each. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.10,000/-, which also deserves to be enhanced to Rs.48,400/-
each.
28. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, the misc. appeals
(CMA Nos.1947/2014 & 1950/2014) preferred by the
appellants/claimants are partly allowed. The judgment and award
dated 25.11.2014 passed by learned Tribunal in MAC Case
No.154/2011 is modified accordingly and the claimants are held
entitled to get enhanced compensation as under: -
[2024:RJ-JD:41196] (16 of 17) [CMA-452/2015]
S. No. Particulars Amount awarded
and enhanced by
this Court
1. Compensation under the head of loss of income Rs.5,70,024/-
Monthly Income Rs.3770/-
deduction 50% Rs. 1885/-
Rs. 1885/-
Add. 40% Future Pros. Rs. 754/-
Rs.2639/-
Rs.2639 x 12 x 18 =Rs.5,70,024/-
2. Consortium (Rs.48,400) Rs.48,400/-
3. Loss of Estate
Rs.18,150/-
4. Funeral Expenses
Rs.18,150/-
Grand Total Rs.6,54,724/-
Less amount awarded by learned Tribunal Rs.4,47,000/-
Rs.2,07,724/-
29. The appellants/claimants are thus held entitled to get
enhanced compensation of Rs.2,07,724/-. The enhanced amount
of compensation be paid to the claimants within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along
with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition,
as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The non-claimants shall pay
the enhanced amount jointly and severally.
30. Insofar as CMA No.1949/2014 : Sangeeta v. Dinesh Sankhla
& Ors. is concerned, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has
awarded total compensation of Rs.83,135/- for the injuries
suffered by the claimant. Claimant- Sangeeta in the said accident
had suffered four simple injuries, for which the learned Tribunal
has awarded Rs.4000/- as compensation, which in the considered
view of this Court, is sufficient. The learned Tribunal has awarded
a sum of Rs.7500/- for the period the claimant/injured remained
hospitalized for a period of 25 days. The learned Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.56,635/- towards the medical bills (Ex.157,
159 to 164, 166, 168, 170 to 172 and 174 to 183. The learned
[2024:RJ-JD:41196] (17 of 17) [CMA-452/2015]
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- for special diet and
nourishment etc. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges for
availing the treatment at hospitals. This Court finds that the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is adequate and
the same calls for no interference by this Court. Consequently, the
appeal (1949/2014) preferred by appellant/claimant is dismissed.
31. Insofar as CMA No.1952/2014 : Dhagla Ram & Anr. v.
Dinesh Sankhla & Ors. is concerned, this Court finds that the
learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition preferred
by the claimants. The learned Tribunal while deciding the claim
petition, has observed that husband of deceased Guddi @ Kirti had
already filed claim petition claiming compensation and the
claimants, who are the parents of deceased, have also preferred
the claim petition. The learned Tribunal while deciding the
aforesaid claim petition observed that in his statements, AW.5
Dhagla Ram admitted that though his daughter was married to
Prakash, however, she was residing with them only as she never
visited her matrimonial home. The learned Tribunal has also
observed that dead body of the deceased was handed over to
brother-in-law of the deceased for funeral. In the considered view
of this Court, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error
while rejecting the claim petition filed by the claimants, parents of
the deceased. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by claimants
(CMA No.1952/2014) is dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
31 to 39-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
