Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Raju Kanwr And Ors vs Shri Man Singh And Ors ... on 20 September, 2024

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2024:RJ-JD:39044]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 663/2001

1.     Smt. Raju Kanwar, widow of Shri Hanuwant Singh.
2.     Jaipal Singh s/o Shri Hanuwant Singh.
3.     Mahipal Singh s/o Shri Hanuwant Singh.
4.     Puran Singh s/o Shri Dhul Singh.
       All r/o Mundara, Tehsil Bali.
       (Appellants Nos.2 and 3 herein are minors through their
       natural guardian and mother Smt. Raju Kanwar.)
                                                                       ----Appellants
                                        Versus
1.     Shri man Singh s/o Shri Ganesh Singh, r/o Khairwara, Near
       Charbhujanathji Mandir, Suraj Pole, Udaipur.
2.     Shri Umesh Gupta s/o Shri Mohan Lal Agrawal, r/o 33,
       Fatehpura, Udaipur.
3.     The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company
       Ltd., Divisional Office Mandia Road, Pali.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :     Mr. Rishabh Shrimali on behalf of Mr.
                                    Suresh Shrimali
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Mahesh Thanvi along with
                                    Mr. Pragya Thanvi for insurance
                                    company



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

20/09/2024

1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ['the Act of 1988'] challenging the

validity of the judgment/award dated 12.07.2000 passed by the

learned Judge, MACT, Bali, District Bali ['learned Tribunal'] in MAC

Case No.44/1999 whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the

claim petition of the appellants and awarded Rs.4,39,000/- as an

amount of compensation with interest @ 6% per annum while

[2024:RJ-JD:39044] (2 of 5) [CMA-663/2001]

holding respondent-Insurance Company liable to pay the amount

of compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.01.199 at around 8-

8.30 pm, Hanuwant Singh (deceased) along with one Mool Singh,

were going to Mundara from Baliyan on a motorcycle. Near Mamaji

Temple, and a car bearing Registration No.RJ-27-G-0003, driven in

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

whereof, Hanuwant Singh became unconscious and during the

course of the treatment, he succumbed to grievous injuries

suffered at the time of the accident. Family members of the

deceased filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal and the

respondents were summoned through a notice. Respondents

Nos.1 and 2 chose not to file reply. The insurance company in its

reply denied the averments of the claimants.

3. As per the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed issues.

Oral as well as documentary evidences were produced by the

appellants before the learned Tribunal to prove their case. On the

contrary, no oral as well as documentary evidence was produced

by the insurance company.

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

allowed the claim petition of the claimants and awarded

compensation in their favour while holding respondent No.3-

Insurance Company, liable to pay the said amount of

compensation. Aggrieved by such a meager amount, the claimants

have preferred the instant misc. appeal.

5. Learned counsel representing the appellants/claimants

submits that the learned Tribunal has erred while assessing the

income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- as his earning towards the

[2024:RJ-JD:39044] (3 of 5) [CMA-663/2001]

agricultural land has not been considered despite the copy of

Jamabandi of the agricultural land placed on record as Exhibit-22.

He also submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted

1/3rd amount towards personal expenses as there were four

dependents in the family of the deceased, including his father and

therefore, 1/4th amount ought to have been deducted. He also

submits that father of the deceased is a handicapped person and

thus, he ought to have been considered as a dependent of the

deceased.

6. Per Contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-

Insurance Company opposes the submissions made by learned

counsel for the appellants and submits that nothing has been

placed on record in the form of evidence or document in order to

establish the fact that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 from

his agricultural land, which was in possession of the claimants. He

also contended that the father cannot be considered as a

dependent of the deceased. He thus, urges, that the instant misc.

appeal warrants rejection.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions

advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on

record.

8. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly

assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- while taking

into consideration Salary Certificate (Exhibit-23), issued by the

employer, Shiv Vahan Bus Service. However, no proof or evidence

has been placed on record in order to demonstrate the fact that

the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- as an agricultural income

from the agricultural land. The learned Tribunal has rightly

[2024:RJ-JD:39044] (4 of 5) [CMA-663/2001]

considered the fact that the deceased merely used to supervise

the work done by the tenants in his agricultural land, which can

also be done by the appellant/claimant No.1 herself and therefore,

enhancement towards agricultural income is not required to be

reassessed by this Court. Also looking to the fact that father of the

deceased is a handicapped person, therefore, he is required to be

considered as a dependent of the deceased and 1/4th amount is

ought to be deducted towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd.

9. Both the counsel were directed to jointly submit the

calculation in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the

cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi : [2017

(16) SCC 680] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation : AIR 2009 SC 3104., which is as under:-

(A) Enhancement towards Pecuniary Heads Income of the deceased per month i.e. Rs.3,000/- x 12 (per annum) x 17 (multiplier) Rs.6,12,000/-

(+) Future Prospects 40% Rs.8,56,800/- Rs.6,12,000/- x 40% = Rs.2,44,800/- (Rs.6,12,000/- + Rs.2,44,800/-) (Less) Personal Deduction i.e. Rs.8,56,800/- x Rs.6,42,600/-

1/4 = Rs.2,14,200/-

Rs.8,56,800/- minus Rs.2,14,200/-

Total of (A) Rs.6,42,600/-

(B) Enhancement towards Non-Pecuniary Heads Loss of Consortium i.e. Rs.40,000/- x 4 Rs.1,60,000/-

Funeral Expenses                                                    Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Estate                                                      Rs.15,000/-
Total of (B)                                                        Rs.1,90,000/-
(A) + (B) i.e. Rs.6,42,600/- + Rs.1,90,000/-                        Rs.8,32,600/-
(Less) Already awarded by leaned Tribunal                           Rs.4,39,000/-
GRAND TOTAL                                                         Rs.3,93,600/-





                                    [2024:RJ-JD:39044]                         (5 of 5)                          [CMA-663/2001]



                                   10.   Accordingly,         this      misc.        appeal         preferred       by    the

appellants/claimants is partly allowed. The judgment/award dated

12.07.2000 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC Case

No.44/1999, is enhanced and modified accordingly. The

appellants/claimants are thus held entitled to get enhanced

compensation of Rs.3,93,600/- in the terms stated above. The

enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the

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

11. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the respondent-

Insurance Company with the learned Tribunal within a period of

'two months' from today and the same be disbursed in favour of

the claimants failing which, the interest shall stand enhanced @

7.5% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization.