Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Geeta And Ors vs Shokin And Ors. (2024:Rj-Jd:37836) on 11 September, 2024

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2024:RJ-JD:37836]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

                               AT JODHPUR


                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2779/2017
1.       Durga Devi @ Pinki W/o Late Shri Narayan Lal, age about
         26 years,
2.       Vishnu S/o Late Shri Narayan Lal, age about 13 years,
         Appellant No.2 is minor through his Natural Guardian
         Mother Appellant No.1.
3.       Kana Ram S/o Shri Magaji Kumhar, age about 55 years,

4.       Pani Devi W/o Kana Ram, age about 54 years,

5.       Harish Kumar S/o Kana Ram, age about 32 years,

6.       Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Kana Ram, age about 28 years,
         All R/o Arathwada, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi.
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.       Shokin S/o Shri Nasebudeen, R/o 143, Block E-2,
         Nandgiri, Delhi - 110093 Vehicle Driver
2.       Lakhvinder Singh Bajwa S/o Bhur Singh, R/o B-18/1,
         West Jyoti Nagarm, Delhi - 110063 Vehicle Owner
3.       National Insurance Company Limited through Divisional
         Manage, R/o Opp. Rotary Club, Residency Road, Jodhpur
         Raj. Insurance Company
                                                                 ----Respondents
                              Connected With


                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2780/2017
1.       Geeta W/o Shri Ram Lal, age about 37 years,

2.       Kamlesh S/o Shri Ram Lal,

3.       Janwi D/o Shri Ram Lal,
         Appellant No. 2 and 3 are minor through Their Natural
         Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1.
4.       Kesha Ram S/o Shri Ganesha Ji,

5.       Pani Bai W/o Kesha Ram, all residents of Sheoganj, Tehsil
         Sheoganj, District Sirohi.
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.       Shokin S/o Shri Nasebudeen, R/o 143, Block E-2,
         Nandgiri, Delhi - 110093 Vehicle Driver
2.       Lakhvinder Singh Bajwa S/o Bhur Singh, R/o B-18/1,
         West Jyoti Nagarm, Delhi - 110063 Vehicle Owner


                     (Downloaded on 12/09/2024 at 08:47:42 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:37836]                   (2 of 9)                        [CMA-2779/2017]




3.       National Insurance Company Limited through Divisional
         Manage R/o Opp. Rotary Club, Residency Road, Jodhpur
         Raj. Insurance Company
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Surendra Surana.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. T.R.S. Sodha, R-3 NIC Ltd.



                HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Judgment

11/09/2024

1. These misc. appeals have been filed by the

appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988

seeking enhancement of the compensation while challenging the

judgment and award dated 27.06.2017 passed by learned Judge,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in MAC Cases No.240/2012

(CIS No.370/2014) and 176/2012 (CIS No.273/2014), whereby

the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the

appellants/claimants and awarded compensation of

Rs.12,18,000/- and Rs.14,60,000/- respectively in favour of

respective claimants. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest

@7.5% per annum on the compensation from the date of filing the

claim petition. Both these appeals arising out of same accident are

being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the

appellants/claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 and

140 of the M.V. Act, 1988 claiming compensation from the

respondents on account of death of their bread winners, who lost

their life in the accident, which took place on 19.09.2012. In the

[2024:RJ-JD:37836] (3 of 9) [CMA-2779/2017]

claim petitions, it was inter-alia alleged by the claimants that on

19.09.2012 deceased, namely, Ramlal and Narayan Lal along with

their friends went to have darshan of Ashapura temple in Car

number RJ-24-CA-3230 and while they were returning from the

temple, at about 04:00 pm, a truck bearing number HR-38L-7575,

which was plied by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the car

and on account of injuries suffered by the occupants of the car,

Ramlal and Narayanlal died on the spot. FIR No.320/2012 of the

incident was lodged at Police Station Sumerpur, District Pali,

wherein after investigation, charge sheet was filed against

Shaukin, driver of the offending truck for the offences under

Sections 279, 304A of IPC. At the time of accident, non-claimant

No.1 was plying the vehicle under the employment and

instructions of non-claimant No.2 and the vehicle was insured with

non-claimant No.3 i.e. insurance company. It was further alleged

in the claim petitions that deceased Ramlal and Narayan were 22

and 26 years of age. In the claim petition No.176/2012 preferred

by claimants Geeta and others alleged that deceased Ramlal was

earning Rs.12000/- per month and they claimed compensation of

Rs.1,15,15,000/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. In claim petition

No.240/2012, preferred by claimants Durga Devi and others

alleged that as per ITR for AY 2010-11, the yearly income of

deceased Narayan was Rs.1,43,710/- as he was running a shop in

the name and style of M/s Sundesha Fashion and they claimed

compensation of Rs.1,26,00,000/- along with interest @ 15% p.a.

3. After the claim petitions being registered, summons were

issued to the non-claimants and despite service, nobody put in

[2024:RJ-JD:37836] (4 of 9) [CMA-2779/2017]

appearance on behalf of non-claimant No.1 and, therefore,

exparte proceedings were ordered against him on 30.03.2013.

4. On behalf of owner/non-claimant No.2, reply to claim

petitions was filed while denying the averments made in the claim

petition and it was alleged that the accident had not been caused

by their vehicle. It was further submitted in the reply that at the

time of accident, the vehicle was fully insured with non-claimant

No.3 and, therefore, the liability to pay the compensation, if any,

was of the non-claimant No.3.

5. On behalf of non-claimant No.3 i.e. insurance company, it

was submitted that at the time of accident, the driver of offending

vehicle was not having valid and effective licence to ply the vehicle

and the vehicle was being plied without there being valid permit

and fitness issued by the competent authority. It was thus alleged

in the reply that on account of violation of policy conditions, the

insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. It was

further alleged that there was no negligence on the part of driver

of the offending truck and the claimants have concealed material

facts with a view to usurp the compensation.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal

framed four issues, including relief. In support of their claims, the

claimants examined AW.1 Durga Devi, AW.2 Prakash Chandra,

AW.3 Geeta and AW.4 Jeevaram. In documentary evidence, 39

documents were exhibited. No evidence was led by the non-

claimants.

7. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence led by

the parties, the learned Tribunal vide judgment and award dated

27.06.2017 partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the

[2024:RJ-JD:37836] (5 of 9) [CMA-2779/2017]

claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.14,60,000/- and

Rs.12,18,000/- in favour of respective claimants.

8. The appellants/claimants have preferred these appeals for

enhancement of the compensation.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants

submits that while deciding the claim petition (240/2012 : Durga

Devi @ Piniki & Ors. vs. Shaukin & Ors.), the learned Tribunal has

committed error while assessing the monthly income of the

deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the

appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was earning

Rs.1,43,710/- per year by running a shop viz. M/s Sundesha

Fashion. Apart from the income from doing the business, deceased

Narayan Lal was earning Rs.2,80,000/- per annum by doing

agriculture work, however, the learned Tribunal has not

considered the income tax returns produced by the claimants

along with their claim petition. Learned counsel for the appellants/

claimants further submits that the learned Tribunal has not

awarded any amount towards future prospects. Learned counsel

appearing for the appellants/claimants further submits that the

compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium is

also on lower side and the same also deserves to be enhanced.

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants further submits that

the compensation awarded qua other conventional heads also

deserves to be enhanced.

10. Learned counsel appearing for appellants/claimants submits

that while deciding the claim petition (176/2012 : Smt. Geeta &

Ors. vs. Shaukin & Ors.) the learned Tribunal has considered the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- only, though the

[2024:RJ-JD:37836] (6 of 9) [CMA-2779/2017]

claimants by producing salary certificate (Ex.31) issued by the

employer of deceased Ramlal, pleaded that the deceased was

earning Rs.12,000/- while working with firm M/s Velaji Jaisaji.

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants thus submits that the

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the loss of

income while considering the minimum wages at Rs.4,000/- is

erroneous and the same ought to have been considered at

Rs.12,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the

appellants/claimants thus submits that the compensation be

enhanced accordingly.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that

the compensation awarded under other heads also deserves to be

enhanced.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.3/non-claimant No.3 National Insurance Company

Ltd. while reiterating the stand taken before the learned Tribunal

submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal

adequate and the same calls for no enhancement.

13. Service upon respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner

was dispensed with by order dated 23.11.2020 passed by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court.

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

parties at length and have perused the material available on

record.

15. This Court finds force in the contention raised by counsel for

the appellants/claimants that though ITR(s) of the deceased were

produced before the learned Tribunal showing that yearly income

of the deceased was Rs.1,43,710/-, however, the learned Tribunal

[2024:RJ-JD:37836] (7 of 9) [CMA-2779/2017]

has not considered the same and while treating the deceased to

be self employed and assessed the monthly income of the

deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month only. This Court thus finds that

the compensation under the head of loss of income deserves to be

re-quantified while considering the yearly income of the deceased

at Rs.1,43,710/- as ITR for AY 2010-11 with 40% future prospects

while applying multiplier of 17. The calculation re-quantifying the

compensation under the loss of income is as infra:

Yearly Income of the deceased Narayanlal Rs.1,43,710/-.

           Add: Future Prospects 40%                          Rs. 57,484/-
                                                              Rs.2,01,194/-

           Multiplier of 17:    Rs.2,01,194/- x 17 = Rs.34,20,298/-
           Deduction ¼                               Rs.8,55,074/-
           Total loss of income                      Rs.25,65,224/-

16. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the

parties, the compensation payable to the claimants under other

heads are also re-quantified.

17. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, the misc. appeal

preferred by the appellants/claimants viz. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal

No.2779/2017 : Smt. Durga Devi @ Pinki & Ors. vs. Shaukin &

Ors., is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 27.06.2017

passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in

MAC Case No.240/2012 (CIS No.370/2014) is modified

accordingly and the claimants are held entitled to get enhanced

compensation as under: -

  S. No.                   Particulars                      Amount      Amount awarded
                                                         awarded by the and enhanced by
                                                            Tribunal       this Court
      1.      Compensation under the head of loss Rs.12,24,000/-          Rs.25,65,224/-
              of income
      2.      Consortium (Rs.48,000 x 6)                 Rs.2,00,000/-         Rs.2,88,000/-
      3.      Loss of Estate                               Rs.10,000/-          Rs.18,000/-



 [2024:RJ-JD:37836]                        (8 of 9)                      [CMA-2779/2017]


      4.      Funeral Expenses                            Rs.25,000/-       Rs.18,000/-
      5.      Transportation charge                       Rs.1,000/-         Nil
                                         Grand Total Rs.14,60,000/-      Rs.28,89,224/-
                          Less amount awarded by learned Tribunal        Rs.14,60,000/-
                                                                        Rs.14,29,224/-