Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kana Ram And Ors vs Shankar Lal And Anr. ... on 20 September, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:39034]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 230/2009
1. Kana Ram S/o Shri Bhera Ram, aged about 53 years,
2. Annu D/o Shri Kana Ram, aged about 14 years,
3. Jawar Lal S/o Shri Kana Ram, aged about 17 years,
All by caste Vishnoi, resident of Ummed Nagar, Vaya Mathania,
Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
Appellant-Claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are minor through their natural
guardian father Shri Kana Ram S/o Shri Bhera Ram.
----Appellants/Claimants
Versus
1. Shankar Lal S/o Shri Mahadev Prasad, resident of Pragpura,
Paota, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur.
(Owner Truck No.RJ-32-GA-0331)
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office,
Residency Road, Jodhpur.
(Insurer Truck No. RJ-32-GA-0331)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mudit Vaishnav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. UCS Singhvi
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
20/09/2024
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimants
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking
enhancement and modification in the award dated 19.11.2008
passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First),
Jodhpur in Claim Case No.29/2008 titled as Kanaram & Ors. Vs.
Shankarlal & Anr. whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded
compensation in favour of claimants/appellants to the tune of
Rs.3,88,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. on account of
death of Ramesh i.e. son of claimant No.1.
[2024:RJ-JD:39034] (2 of 5) [CMA-230/2009]
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
Ramesh who is the son of claimants No.1 and he was working as a
Khalasi on Truck No.RJ-19-1G-4356. On 17.08.2007, at about
6:05 AM, he was going along with the driver Rughnathram from
Jodhpur to Ahmedabad and when they reached near Kirwa village,
then another truck driver bearing registration NO.RJ-32-GA-0331
hit their truck due to which Ramesh got serever injuries and died
during the treatment. The claimants/appellants filed claim petition
under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the
learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,53,300/- against
the respondents i.e. Insurance Company and owner.
3. After registration of the claim petition, summons were issued
to the non-claimants. On receipt of the summons, respondent
No.1 did not appear before the learned Tribunal and ex parte
proceedings were initiated against him. Respondent No.2 i.e.
insurance company filed reply to claim petition while refuting the
averments made in the claim petition. It was submitted in the
reply that the accident was caused on account of negligence on
the part of truck driver himself, who in fact was not having the
valid and effective licence. It was further submitted that in
absence of having valid licence to ply the vehicle, the insurance
company could not have been held liable to pay the compensation
and thus, a prayer was made for rejecting the claim petition.
4. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal
framed four issues including relief. The claimants in support of
their claim examined AW.1 Kana Ram and exhibited 10 documents
[2024:RJ-JD:39034] (3 of 5) [CMA-230/2009]
in evidence. On behalf of non-claimants no evidence was
produced.
5. The learned Tribunal after considering the arguments
advanced on behalf of parties and the material available on record
vide judgment and award dated 19.11.2008 partly allowed the
claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded compensation of
Rs.3,88,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. and the liability of
paying the compensation was fastened upon non-claimants jointly
and severally.
6. The instant appeal was admitted by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 18.03.2013.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants
submits that the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue No.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
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:39034] (4 of 5) [CMA-230/2009]
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2-Insurance Company opposes the submissions made by
counsel for the appellants/claimants and 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.
9. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties at length and have perused the material available on
record.
10. 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 2008, 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
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 1/3 for personal expenses of the
deceased in accordance with the IInd Schedule of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, the claimants are not entitled to
seek enhancement under the head of loss of income.
11. 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 as the claim petition was filed under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as per the
[2024:RJ-JD:39034] (5 of 5) [CMA-230/2009]
Schedule, compensation towards consortium can be awarded only
where the spouse is the beneficiary & in the present case, it is not
so and therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal is just and proper as per the IInd Schedule attached to
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and therefore, indulgence of this
Court is not required.
12. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, this Court finds
no force in the misc. appeal and the same is hereby, dismissed.
No costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
125-amit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
