Wednesday, 06, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Vakeel And Anr vs Babulal And Ors. (2024:Rj-Jd:42031)
2024 Latest Caselaw 9017 Raj

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9017 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 October, 2024

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vakeel And Anr vs Babulal And Ors. (2024:Rj-Jd:42031) on 16 October, 2024

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2024:RJ-JD:42031]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1038/2015

     1. Vakeel S/o Hari Singh, aged 25 years
     2. Rekha w/o Vakeel, aged 23 years
       Both residents of 344-G, Village Barthun Part-2, Tehsil
       Mansa, Neemach, M.P.
                                                     ----Appellants/Claimants
                                    Versus
     1. Babulal s/o Dudaram, R/o Pipaliyankalan, Tehsil Raipur,
       District Pali, Rajasthan.
                                  ...Driver of Tempo No.Rj-22-GA-4302
     2. Manjoor Khan s/o Hakim khan R/o Pipaliyankalan, Tehsil
       Raipur, District Pali, Rajasthan
                                 ...Owner of Tempo No.Rj-22-GA-4302
     3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office
       IFFCO Sadan, C-1 Dist. Center, Saket, New Delhi.
                                                         ...Insurance Company
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Ravi Panwar for claimants
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Vishal Singhal for Insurance
                                Company



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

16/10/2024

1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that service of

notice upon respondent Nos.1 and 2 may be dispensed with.

At the risk and cost of learned counsel for the appellant,

service of notice upon respondent Nos.1 and 2 is dispensed with.

2. Service of application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act is complete.

[2024:RJ-JD:42031] (2 of 4) [CMA-1038/2015]

3. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been

preferred by the appellants for condoning the delay of 4 days

caused in filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed

and the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Vishal Singhal puts in appearance on

behalf of the respondent No.3-insurance company.

5. The present civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the

appellant-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 ('MV Act') assailing the judgment and award dated

20.02.2015 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Jaitaran, District Pali, ('Tribunal') in MAC Case

No.98/2013, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim

petition filed by the appellant/claimants under Section 166 of the

MV Act and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/-, in favour of

respondents/claimants along with interest @ 9% p.a.from the date

of filing the claim petition, while fastening the liability jointly and

severally upon the respondents.

6. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 23.09.2013,

when Motilal, Surajmal, Rahul, Kamla and Arun (deceased) were

going on a motorcycle, a tempo bearing number RJ-22-GA-4302

hit the motorcycle on acount of which all persons sitting on the

motorcycle fell down and Arun (deceased) sustained grievous

injury and succumbed to death. Thereafter, a claim under Section

166 was filed before the learned Tribunal, wherein on 20.02.2015

partly allowed the claim petition while awarding Rs. 2,25,000/- to

the appellant-claimants with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of

filing the application, i.e. 27.09.2013. Thus, aggrieved of the

[2024:RJ-JD:42031] (3 of 4) [CMA-1038/2015]

judgment and award dated 20.02.2015, the appellant-claimants

have preferred the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants submits that the

learned Tribunal has erred in awarding a lump-sum amount of

Rs.2,25,000/- to the claimants and the same deserves to be

enhanced.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respodent-Insurance

Company submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is

just and calls for no interference by this Court.

9. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has erred in

awarding a meagre sum of Rs.2,25,000/- towards the death of the

deceased, Arun, aged 3 years and thus, deems it fit to assess a

just compensation which is reasonable according to the underlying

facts and circumstances of the case along with the evidence

placed on record, in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Meena Devi v Nunu Chand Mahto @

Nemchand Mahto & Others [Civil Appeal No. 7255 of 2022

decided on 13.10.2022] and Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali &

another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another [CIVIL

APPEAL NO.6902 OF 2021 decided on 16.11.2021].

10. This Court also deems it just to take the notional income of

the deceased as Rs.15,000/- while computing the loss of

dependency, looking at the age of the deceased, i.e. three years.

Moreover, while taking into consideration the judgments cited

herein above, this Court also deems it just to award Rs.1,15,000/-

towards the conventional heads to the appellant/claimants.

11. Thus, after arriving at the conclusion that the amount

awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be enhanced in MAC

[2024:RJ-JD:42031] (4 of 4) [CMA-1038/2015]

Case No. 98/2013, this Court directed both the counsels to jointly

submit the calculation of the compensation awardable to the

claimants, afresh in light of the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble

the Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi (supra) and

Kurvan Ansari (supra) which they have furnished before this

Court in a tabular form as below:

Particulars Awarded by Tribunal Awarded by the Court Loss of dependancy Rs. 2,25,000- (lump-sum Rs, 2,25,000/-

                                   (i.e. 15,000 x 15) [A]                          awarded)
                                   Conventional Heads [B]                                                     Rs. 1,15,000/-
                                   Total [A+B]                              Rs. 2,25,000/-[C]              Rs. 3,40,000/-[D]
                                   Amount enhanced [D - C]                                                        1,15,000/-

12. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, the misc.

appeal filed by the appellant/claimants is partly allowed. The

claimants are thus held entitled to get compensation of

Rs.3,40,000/- instead of Rs. 2,25,000/-, jointly and severally from

the respondents at the same rate of interest as awarded by the

learned Tribunal. The amount of compensation is thus enhanced

by Rs. 1,15,000/-.The judgment and award dated 20.02.2015

passed by the learned MACT, Jaitaran, in MAC Case No.98/2013 is

partially modified. The compensation re-determined by this

judgment, shall carry interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal

from the date of filing of claim petition. The amount of

compensation, if any disbursed to the claimants, shall be adjusted

accordingly.

13. No order as to costs.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 95-Ajay/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter