Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

N.I.C.Ltd vs Narayan Lal And Ors. ... on 21 September, 2024

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2024:RJ-JD:39276]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1143/2010
National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager
Bhilwara through Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office 12 th
Residency Road, Jodhpur
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1. Narayan Lal S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, resident of Sunda Ka
Kheda, Tehsil Sahada, District Bhilwara(Claimant)
2.    Bhanwar        Singh    S/o      Shri     Daulat        Ram,     Resident   of
Meruni/Meloni        Darwaza,       Gangapur,          Tehsil      Sahada,   District
Bhilwara(Vehicle Owner)
3. Gopal Lal S/o Shri Surjamal Acharya, resident of Pur, District
Bhilwara (Vehicle Driver)
                                                                     ----Respondent
                                 Connected With
                 S.B. Civ.cros.obj.miscapp No. 5/2015
Narayan Lal S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, resident of Sunda Ka
Kheda, Tehsil Sahada, District Bhilwara(Claimant)
                                                  ----Cross Objector/Appellant
                                      Versus
1. National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager
Bhilwara through Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office 12 th
Residency Road, Jodhpur (Insurer)
2. Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Daulat Singh Chauhan, Resident of
Meruni/Meloni        Darwaza,       Gangapur,          Tehsil      Sahada,   District
Bhilwara(Vehicle Owner)
3. Gopal Lal S/o Shri Surjamal Acharya, resident of Pur, District
Bhilwara (Vehicle Driver)
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :    Mr. Rajesh Choudhary for Insurance
                                  Company
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. Nikhil Ajemera and Mr. Lokendra
                                  Singh for Mr. Sandeep Saruparia for
                                  claimant



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

[2024:RJ-JD:39276] (2 of 6) [CMA-1143/2010]

21/09/2024

1. Heard. Perused the material available on record.

2. By way of the instant misc. appeal filed under Section 173 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act of 1988'), the

appellant/claimant has sought reduction in the compensation and

sought modification of the judgment & award dated 28.05.2010

passed by the learned Judge MACT, Bhilwara in MACT Case

No.552/2007 whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the

claim of the claimant by awarding an amount to the tune of

Rs.19,68,800/- @ 8% p.a. in their favour.

3. By way of the Cross Objection (Civil) No.5/2015 filed under

Order 41 Rule 22 CPC read with Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 ('the Act of 1988'), the appellant/claimant has sought

enhancement of the compensation and has sought modification of

the judgment & award dated 28.05.2010 passed by the learned

Judge MACT, Bhilwara in MACT Case No.552/2007 whereby the

learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim of the claimant by

awarding an amount to the tune of Rs.19,68,800/- @ 8% p.a. in

his favour.

4. Both, the appeal as well as the cross objection, are being

decided by this common order, however the facts of the civil misc.

appeal No.1143/2010 are taken illustratively.

5. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that on 19.04.2006,

claimant Narayanlal was going from Gangpur to Bhilwara in bus

no. RJ-06PA-0126, which was driven by the respondent No.3, in a

rash and negligent manner. Thereafter, the bus lost balance and

overturned, due to which, Narayanlal received grievous injuries.

[2024:RJ-JD:39276] (3 of 6) [CMA-1143/2010]

6. Learned Tribunal has issued the notices. Despite being

served, none appeared for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and therefore,

ex-parte proceedings are initiated against them. The respondent

No.2-Insurance Company in its reply denied all averments made in

the claim petition.

7. In support of their claim petition, the appellants-claimants

produced 3 witnesses and exhibited documents to prove their

case. Oral as well as documentary evidence were also produced to

prove the case. No evidence was produced in defence. As per

pleadings, issues were framed by the learned Tribunal and after

hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the award in

favour of the claimants and being dissatisfied from the award, the

appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the civil misc. appeal

and the respondents-claimants have filed a cross objection to the

said appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company

submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding

compensation and therefore, the award deserves to be modified

and the compensation deserves to be reduced. He further submits

the learned Tribunal had erred in considering the income of the

claimant and multiplier has wrongly been applied taking into

consideration the age of the claimant. He also submits that the

learned Tribunal has incorrectly levied an interest rate of 8% on

the compensation awarded vide judgment and award dated

28.05.2010.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants

submits the claimant has under gone 13 surgeries for his right

hand and he is still not able to use his right hand completely,

[2024:RJ-JD:39276] (4 of 6) [CMA-1143/2010]

therefore he submits that his permanent disability of 80% has

been assessed by the concerned doctor, ought to have been

considered as 100% functional disability, in light of the judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs.

Ajay Kumar (Civil Appeal No.8981 of 2010) decided on

18.10.2010. He also submits that the compensation towards

future medical expenses, attendant charges and the

compensation towards the pain and suffering caused to the

claimant on account of the said injury, should be enhanced. He

also submits that the rate of interest on the award should be

applied as determined by the learned Tribunal.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions

advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on

record.

11. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly

considered the income of the claimant taking into account his

profession i.e. he practiced as an advocate for a period of three

years and also worked as a professor along with his educational

qualifications, therefore the contentions of the appellant-Insurance

Company are allowed only to the extent of modification in the

multiplier and the rate of interest applied by the learned Tribunal.

Therefore, in view of this Court, a multiplier of 16 is to be applied

instead of 17 as determined by the learned Tribunal, in light of

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : AIR 2009 SC

3104. This Court also finds that the amount of compensation so

awarded by the learned Tribunal towards pain and suffering

caused to the claimant on account of the injury, is on a lower side

and thus in light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

[2024:RJ-JD:39276] (5 of 6) [CMA-1143/2010]

the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager, United India

Insurance Company Ltd & Anr: (Civil Appeal No.8510 of

2022 decided on 16.11.2022), this Court assesses the amount

towards pain and suffering as Rs.2,76,480/-, i.e. 20% of the total

award excluding the medical bills.

It is also seen from Exhibit-374 issued by the concerned

doctor of Shalby Hospital, Ahmadabad that the amount awarded

towards future medical charges is also on lower side and thus, this

Court deems it appropriate to enhance the said amount to the

tune of Rs.1,50,000/-

12. Thus, looking to the factual matrix of the case and applying

the ratio of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in

the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi & Ors. : 2017 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation : AIR 2009 SC 3104 along with Sidram

Vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance

Company Ltd & Anr: (Civil Appeal No.8510 of 2022 decided

on 16.11.2022), the instant misc. appeal is partly allowed in so far

as the multiplier applied while assessing the loss of income as well

as the rate of interest levied on the award by the learned MACT,

Bhilwara in MAC Case No.552/2007 is concerned, the amount

awarded towards loss of income is modified while applying the

multiplier of 16 and an interest rate of 7%, in light of Section 171

of the MV Act. Moreover, the cross objection filed by the

respondent-claimant is partly allowed, inasmuch as the amount

awarded by learned MACT, Bhilwara in MACT Case No.552/2007,

towards pain and suffering and future medical expenses is on a

lower side. Thus, after arriving at a conclusion that the award

[2024:RJ-JD:39276] (6 of 6) [CMA-1143/2010]

passed by the learned MACT, Bhilwara in MAC Case No.552/2007

deserves to be modified, this Court directed both the counsel to

submit the calculation. The compensation is enhanced as per the

calculations submitted by the counsel for the parties, in the

following manner:-

Yearly Income assessed by the Tribunal Rs.1,08,000/- Applying the multiply on the said income and Rs. 13,82,400/-

                                   taking into consideration 80% permanent
                                   disability  suffered    by    the     claimant
                                   (1,08,000X16X80%) (A)

(Add) Pain and Suffering (20%x 13,82,400/-) Rs.2,76,480/- (B) (Add) Future Medical Charges (C) Rs.1,50,000/- (Add) Attendant charges as awarded by Rs.35,000/- Tribunal (D) (Add) For simple injuries charges as awarded Rs.5,000/-

by Tribunal (E) ((Add) Medical Bills charges as awarded by Rs.3,10,000/- Tribunal (F) ((Add) Special Diet charges as awarded by Rs. 25,000/-

                                   Tribunal (G)
                                   TOTAL (A+B+C+D+E+G)                                         Rs.21,83,880/-
                                   Amount awarded by the learned Tribunal                      Rs.19,68,000/-
                                   Enhanced amount                                             Rs.2,15,080/-

13. The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced

compensation of Rs.2,15,080/- along with interest @ 7% in light

of Section 171 of the MV Act, from the date of filing of claim

petition.

14. The amount, if any, already paid by the Insurance Company,

shall be adjusted towards the amount finally awarded by this

Court.

15. No order as to costs.

16. Record be returned to the Tribunal forthwith.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J surabhii/12-13-