Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd vs Smt. Santosh And Ors. ... on 19 October, 2024

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2024:RJ-JD:42841]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 296/2016

1.     Smt. Santosh w/o late Shri Indrajeet Singh, aged about 32
       years.
2.     Manisha d/o Late Shri Indrajeet Singh, aged about 15
       years.
3.     Tarun s/o Late Shri Indrajeet Singh, aged about 11 years.
       (Appellants Nos.2 and 3 are minors through their natural
       guardian, mother Smt. Santosh.).
                                                                       ----Appellants
                                        Versus
1.     Dharampal s/o Ravidutt, r/o Shyam nagar, Tehsil & District
       Hissar, presently r/o M.P. Maharashtra Truck Stand, Jaipur.
                                                      (Driver of the truck Trailor)
2.     Ashok Bansal s/o Shri Chandra ji Bansal, r/o 581 Auto
       Market, Hissar, presently r/o house No.153 Arban Estate-II,
       Hissar (Haryana).
                                    (Registered Owner of the Truck Trailor)
3.     The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Office at
       19, Reliance Centre, Valchand Heerachand Marg, Ballad
       (East), Mumbai, through its Regional Manager.
                                  (Insurer of the Truck No.HR-39-B-3601)
                                                                     (Non-Claimants)
                                                                     ----Respondents
                                  Connected With
                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2218/2015
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Office at 19,
Reliance Centre, Valchand Heerachand Marg, Ballad (East),
Mumbai, through its Regional Manager. (Insurer of Truck Trailor
No.HR-39-B-3601)
                                                                        ----Appellant
                                        Versus
1.     Smt. Santosh w/o late Shri Indrajeet Singh, aged about 32
       years.
2.     Manisha d/o Late Shri Indrajeet Singh, aged about 15
       years.
3.     Tarun s/o Late Shri Indrajeet Singh, aged about 11 years.
       (Appellants Nos.2 and 3 are minors through their natural
       guardian, mother Smt. Santosh.).

                         (Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:36:03 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:42841]                   (2 of 5)                       [CMA-296/2016]


4.     Smt. Suwa w/o late Bagda Ram.
       (All r/o Basni Kaviya, Jaitaran Police Station, District Pali,
       presently resident       of    Railway Quarter,            Satlana,   Luni,
       District Jodhpur.
                                                                     (Claimants)
5.     Dharampal s/o Ravidutt, r/o Shyam nagar, Tehsil & District
       Hissar, presently r/o M.P. Maharashtra Truck Stand, Jaipur.
                                                  (Driver of the truck Trailor)
6.     Ashok Bansal s/o Shri Chandra ji Bansal, r/o 581 Auto
       Market, Hissar, presently r/o house No.153 Arban Estate-II,
       Hissar (Haryana).
                                (Registered Owner of the Truck Trailor)
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :    Mr. Rajesh Choudhary (for the
                                claimants)
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. T.R.S. Sodha (for the Respondent-
                                Insurance Company)



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

19/10/2024

1. Both these misc. appeals have been filed by the appellants

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ['the Act of

1988'] challenging the judgment-cum-award dated 14.10.2015

passed by the Presiding Officer, MACT, Jodhpur in MAC Case

No.397/2011 (1789/2014); whereby, the learned Tribunal partly

allowed the claim petition and awarded quantum of compensation

in favour of the claimants and held the respondents liable to pay

the same jointly and severally.

2. An application (No.02/2024) has been moved by learned

counsel for the appellant-applicant in SBCMA No.296/2016, for

deleting the name of appellant No.4-Suwa from the array of party

appellants/claimants in the appeal.

[2024:RJ-JD:42841] (3 of 5) [CMA-296/2016]

3. For the reasons as set out in the application, the same is

allowed. The name of appellant No.4-Suwa, shall be deleted from

the array of party appellants in the misc. appeal being SBCMA

No.296/2016.

4. Since both these misc. appeals arise out of a common order

dated 14.10.2015, facts of SBCMA No.296/2016 are being taken

for consideration and adjudication of both these misc. appeals.

5. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.02.2011 at about 12.45

pm, Inderjeet Singh (deceased), husband of the appellant No.1,

was travelling along with one Rajeev Kumar Ranjan on a motor

cycle bearing registration No.RJ-19-SK-1664 from Satlana to

Jodhpur Railway Station via Pali Jodhpur Highway Road. When

they reached near Village Mogra, a Truck bearing registration

No.HR-39-B-3601, coming from Jodhpur, driven in a rash and

negligent manner, hit the motorcycle and as a result whereof,

Indrajeet and Rajeev Kumar Fell down and received several

injuries. They were rushed in Mathura Das Mathur Hospital,

Jodhpur and during the treatment, Indrajeet expired on

13.02.2011.

6. A claim petition was filed by the family members of the

deceased before the learned Tribunal and claimed compensation.

Reply was filed on behalf of the respondents while denying all the

averments made in the claim petition. As per the pleadings, the

learned Tribunal framed four issues. Oral as well as documentary

evidences were produced by the claimants in support of their

claim petition and on the other hand, no oral or documentary

evidences were produced by the respondents.

[2024:RJ-JD:42841] (4 of 5) [CMA-296/2016]

7. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal partly

allowed the claim petition of the claimants and thus, being

aggrieved/dissatisfied of the same, the claimants have preferred

the misc. appeal.

8. The only plea raised by learned counsel representing the

appellants/claimants is that the learned Tribunal has awarded a

meager amount towards medical bills, which were produced by

the appellants/claimants before the learned Tribunal, but the

learned Tribunal failed to take this aspect into consideration and

awarded just compensation towards such head.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the

Insurance Company restricts his arguments to the extent that the

amount awarded by the learned Tribunal towards Consortium is on

the higher side.

10. After hearing the submissions advanced by learned counsel

representing the parties, this Court finds that the quantum of

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the

claimants towards medical bills, is on a lower side and thus, the

same deserves to be enhanced. Furthermore, the compensation

awarded by the learned Tribunal under the non-pecuniary heads

i.e. Consortium and Funeral Expenses, is on a higher side and

thus, the same deserves to be modified in light of the guidelines

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

Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported

in [(2017)16 SCC 680]. The compensation is modified in

following manner:-

Particulars Awarded by the Awarded by this learned Tribunal Court

[2024:RJ-JD:42841] (5 of 5) [CMA-296/2016]

Loss of Income Rs.35,86,688/- Rs.35,86,688/-

                                   Medical Bills             NIL                              Rs.44,000/-
                                   Loss of Consortium        Rs.2,05,000/-                    Rs.1,45,200/-
                                                                                              (Rs.48,400/- x 4)
                                   Funeral Expenses          Rs.25,000/-                      Rs.18,150/-
                                   TOTAL                     Rs.38,16,688/-                   Rs.38,42,438/-
                                   ENHANCED AMOUNT                                            Rs.25,750/-


                                   11.   Accordingly,        the       misc.        appeal          being   SBCMA

                                   No.2218/2015         preferred          by      the       appellant-Insurance

Company, is dismissed and the misc. appeal being SBCMA

No.296/2016 preferred by the claimants/appellants is

partly allowed. The judgment-cum-award dated 14.11.2015

passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Jodhpur in MAC Case

No.397/2011 (1789/2014) is enhanced/modified in the terms

stated above. The claimants are thus, held entitled to get

enhanced compensation of Rs.25,750/- in accordance with the

directions given by the learned Tribunal. The enhanced amount

shall carry interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the

date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit. Any

amount, if already paid, shall be adjusted accordingly.