Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Geeta And Ors vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd And Anr. ... on 11 September, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:37837]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2681/2016
1. Smt. Geeta W/o Late Shri Shankar Regar,
2. Smt. Keshar W/o Late Shri Bheru Lal Regar,
3. Miss Asha D/o Late Shri Shankar Regar,
4. Miss Bhaguti @ Bhagwati D/o Late Shri Shankar Regar,
5. Raju S/o Late Shri Shankar Regar,
6. Miss Pooja D/o Late Shri Shankar Regar,
Appellants No.3 to 6 being minor through their natural
guardian mother i.e. appellant No.1 Geeta W/o late Shri
Shankar Regar)
All residents of Regar Mohalla, Sanganer Bhilwara,
Rajasthan
----Appellants
Versus
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional
Office Bhilwara
2. Kailash Regar S/o Shri Kuka Regar, Bagor Tehsil Mandal,
District- Bhilwara
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Avinash Bhati on behalf of
Mr. Ramesh Purohit.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kaushik, R-1 UIICL.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Judgment
11/09/2024
1. Appellants/claimants have preferred the instant misc. appeal
under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of
the compensation and modification of the judgment and award
dated 26.07.2016 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bhilwara ('learned Tribunal') in MAC Case No.408/2011,
[2024:RJ-JD:37837] (2 of 5) [CMA-2681/2016]
whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed
by the appellants/claimants and awarded compensation of
Rs.5,20,500/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. while holding both
the non-claimants liable to pay the same.
2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the
appellants/claimants filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of
M.V. Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of death of their
sole breadwinner late Sh. Bherulal Regar, who lost his life in the
accident, which took place on 04.06.2010. In the claim petition, it
was alleged that on 04.06.2010, deceased Bherulal Regar was
going on motorcycle bearing registration number RJ-06-SK-5915
as pillion rider. The said motorcycle was plied by its rider i.e. non-
claimant No.2 rashly and negligently and it collided with unknown,
as a result of which Bherulal sustained injuries and he died on the
spot. The claimants being the legal heirs of deceased filed claim
petition with the averments that the deceased was 22 years of age
and he was earning Rs.3300/- per month by agricultural, animal
husbandry and paining work etc. The claimants thus filed claim
petition claiming compensation of Rs.11,32,000/-.
3. After registration of the claim petition, summons were issued
to the non-claimants. On receipt of the summons, on behalf of
non-claimant No.1 i.e. insurance company, reply to claim petition
was filed while refuting the averments made in the claim petition.
It was alleged in the reply that the accident was caused on
account of negligence on the part of deceased himself, who in fact
was not having the licence. It was further alleged that in absence
of having valid licence to ply the vehicle, the insurance company
[2024:RJ-JD:37837] (3 of 5) [CMA-2681/2016]
could not have been held liable to pay the compensation and thus
a prayer was made for rejecting the claim petition.
4. On behalf of non-claimant No.2, reply to claim petition was
filed while denying the averments in the claim petition. It was
alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of unknown vehicle, which after causing accident, fled
away from the place of accident. It was further alleged that the
vehicle was insured with non-claimant No.1, therefore, it was
liable to pay the compensation.
5. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal
framed five issues including relief. The claimants in support of
their claim examined AW.1 Geeta and exhibited 7 documents in
evidence. On behalf of non-claimants no evidence was produced.
6. The learned Tribunal after considering the arguments
advanced on behalf of parties and the material available on record
vide judgment and award dated 26.07.2016 partly allowed the
claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded compensation of
Rs.5,20,500/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. and the liability of
paying the compensation was fastened upon non-claimants jointly
and severally.
7. The instant appeal was admitted by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 19.11.2016.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants
submits that the learned Tribunal while deciding the issues No.1
and 2 in favour of claimants has awarded a very meager amount
of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants
submits that the deceased was earning Rs.3300/- per month,
however, the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the
[2024:RJ-JD:37837] (4 of 5) [CMA-2681/2016]
minimum wages and has assessed the monthly income of the
deceased to be Rs.3000/- only. Learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants submits that the compensation thus awarded
while considering the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.3000/- is erroneous and the same ought to have been
Rs.3300/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellants further
submits that no compensation has been awarded by the learned
Tribunal towards future prospects. He further submits that the
compensation awarded under the non-pecuniary heads also
deserves to be suitable enhanced.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1/non-claimant No.1 insurance company opposes the
submissions made by counsel for the appellants/claimants.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the claim
petition was filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the
M.V. Act, 1988 and the compensation awarded as per the relevant
Schedule appended, is adequate and, therefore, the misc. appeal
deserves dismissal.
10. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties at length and have perused the material available on
record.
11. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal while quantifying
the compensation under the loss of income has taken into
consideration the minimum wages at Rs.3000/-, which was
prevalent in the year 2010, and rightly so, inasmuch as the
claimants though pleaded that the deceased was earning
Rs.3300/- per month, however, to substantiate the aforesaid
income, no document was produced by them. Therefore, in
[2024:RJ-JD:37837] (5 of 5) [CMA-2681/2016]
absence of any documentary evidence substantiating the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.3300/-, the learned Tribunal was
justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.3000/- while deducting 1/4 for personal expenses of the
deceased looking to number of dependents. Accordingly, the
claimants are not entitled to seek enhancement under the head of
loss of income.
12. This Court also finds that the compensation awarded under
the other heads viz. loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss
of estate is also adequate, and therefore, no interference is called
for.
13. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, this Court finds
no force in the misc. appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
No costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
54-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
