Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sohan Singh And Ors. ... on 10 October, 2024

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2024:RJ-JD:41661]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1687/2015

National Insurance Co. Ltd./Divisional Office, 6-Bapu Bazar,
Udaipur, through its legally Constituted authority, Regional
Office, Sun Tower, Pal Road, Jodhpur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sohan Singh S/o Shri Chaturbuj
2. Smt. Chunni Bai W/o Shri Sohan Singh
3. Smt. Kanaki Devi W/o Late Shri. Prakash Singh
R/o Nadewa, Riched, Tehsil Kumbalgarh, District Rajsamand
----claimants
4. Mohan Singh S/o Shri Daulat Singh Chouhan, resident of
Village and Tehsil Kelwara, District Rajsamand (Driver)
5. Karan Singh S/o Shri Umed Singh Chouhan, C/o Sumeet Soni,
S/o Shri Mohan Soni, 4/352, RNB Colony, Sector 14, Udaipur
(Owner)
Non Applicants Nos.1 and 2

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Ajmera for Mr. Sandeep
Sarpuria- for respondent Nos.4 and 5

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order
10/10/2024

1. As per the Office Report, the service of

respondents/claimants is complete on 02.09.2019, however

despite service, no one has put in appearance for the

respondents/claimants.

2. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed by the instant

appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988, challenging the

validity of the judgment and award dated 20.07.2015 passed by

learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand

(Downloaded on 10/10/2024 at 09:49:37 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:41661] (2 of 5) [CMA-1687/2015]

('Tribunal') in MAC Case No.50/2013, whereby the learned

Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of claimants to tune

of Rs.15,26,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of

filing the claim petition on account of death of Sh. Prakash Singh,

while fastening the liability upon appellant-Insurance Company

and respondent Nos.4 and 5 jointly and severally.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimants filed a

claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 before the

learned Tribunal claiming compensation on account of untimely

death of their son late Sh. Prakash Singh. In the claim petition it

was stated by the claimants that on 19.10.2012 at about 5:00 PM,

while deceased was coming towards Kelawada Riched on

Motorcycle, and on the way a Maruti Gypsy Car RJ 27-TA-2870

coming from the opposite direction and was being plied by its

driver rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle. As a result of

which, Prakash Singh sustained injuries and he died, thus the

claimants filed claim petition.

4. Thereafter, learned Tribunal issued notices to the non-

claimants. Respondents Nos.1,2 and 3 filed reply to the same and

denied all the averments. As per the pleadings, learned Tribunal

framed the issues. Thereafter, claimants in support of their claim

petition, examined 2 witnesses and exhibited several documents

to prove their case whereas 2 witness(es) and several

document(s) were produced or led in defence.

5. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed

the claim petition of the claimants and vide judgment/award dated

20.07.2015 awarded quantum of compensation to the tune of

Rs.15,26,000/- with the interest @9% p.a. and being dissatisfied

(Downloaded on 10/10/2024 at 09:49:37 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:41661] (3 of 5) [CMA-1687/2015]

of the award, the appellant/claimant-Insurance Company has

preferred the claim petition.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has

laid a challenge to the impugned award only to the extent of

quantum of the compensation so awarded by the learned Tribunal.

He submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the

monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- in the absence of

any cogent evidence produced on record. He further submits that

the learned Tribunal has awarded 50% future prospects, which

looking to the age of the deceased, deserves to be 40%. He also

submits that funeral expenses awarded by the learned Tribunal is

on a higher side.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents/

non-claimants opposes the submissions made by counsel for the

insurance company and submits that the compensation awarded

by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and thus calls for no

interference by this Court.

8. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the

parties at length and have perused the material available on

record.

9. This Court finds that the income of the deceased has been

rightly assessed by the learned Tribunal as Rs.6000/- while

considering the fact that the father of the deceased had clearly

deposed that the deceased was engaged in marble trading and

vegetable business and thus the learned Tribunal observed that a

person of age 25 years engaged in marble trading and vegetable

business would reasonably earn Rs.200/- per day. Therefore, this

Court finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly arrived at the

(Downloaded on 10/10/2024 at 09:49:37 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:41661] (4 of 5) [CMA-1687/2015]

income of the deceased in absence of any evidence produced

thereto, while reasonably applying some guesswork and thus this

Court concurs with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the

monthly income of the deceased has been rightly taken as

Rs.6000/-. Moreover, This Court also finds that the learned

Tribunal has erred in adding 50% of future prospects towards the

loss of income incurred by the appellant-claimants, instead of

40% and thus deems it fit to reduce the future prospects towards

the loss of income to 40% in the light of the judgment passed by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co.

Ltd v. Pranay Sethi : 2017 (16) SCC 680.

However, this Court is of the view that the compensation

awarded by learned Tribunal towards heads viz. consortium

deserves to be enhanced and the compensation towards funeral

expenses and loss of estates deserve to be modified, in the light

of judgment passed in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

10. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned

Tribunal towards the future prospects, consortium, funeral

expenses as well as loss of estates are required to be re-quantified

in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : AIR 2009 SC

3104. Both the counsel are directed to submit the calculation, the

compensation is accordingly re-quantified as under:
Particulars Awarded by Amount
Tribunal
Income of the deceased Rs.6000/- Rs.6,000/-
(Add) 40% Future Prospects Rs.9000/- Rs.8,400/-
i.e.Rs.2,400/-
(6,000+2,400)=8,400/-
(Less) deduction 1/3rd i.e. Rs.6000/- Rs.5600/-
Rs.8400- 1/3 of (8400) =

(Downloaded on 10/10/2024 at 09:49:37 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:41661] (5 of 5) [CMA-1687/2015]

Rs.5600/-
Rs.5600 x 12 (per annum) x Rs.12,96,000/- Rs.12,09,600/-
18 (multiplier)
Add Consortium (48,400x3) Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,45,200/-
to wife+
Rs.1,00,000/-
to parents
=Rs.2,00,000/-
(Add) funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.18150/-

loss of estate Rs.2000/- Rs.18150/-
Transportation Expenses Rs.3000/- Rs.3000/-
TOTAL Rs.15,26,000/- Rs.13,94,100/
-

REDUCED Rs.1,31,900/-

11. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, the misc. appeal

filed by the appellant insurance company is partly allowed. The

claimants are thus held entitled to get compensation of

Rs.13,94,100/- instead of Rs.15,26,000/-, jointly and severally

from appellant-Insurance Company and respondent Nos.4 and 5

at the same rate of interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

The amount of compensation is thus reduced by Rs.1,31,900/-.

The judgment and award dated 20.07.2015 passed by the learned

MACT, Rajsamand, in MAC Case No.50/2013 is modified. The

compensation re-determined by this judgment, shall carry interest