Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mariyam And Ors vs Keshu Lal And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:2676) on 15 January, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:2676]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1776/2017

1. Smt. Mariyam Widow Of Mohd. Khan, Aged 48 years,
2. Rasul Khan S/o Mohd. Khan, Aged 28 years,
3. Rukshana Bano D/o Mohd. Khan, Aged 25 years,
4. Nasira Banu D/o Mohd. Khan, Aged 24 years,
5. Sabir @ Jakir Khan S/o Mohd. Khan, Aged 22 years,
6. Nizamudeen S/o Mohd. Khan, Aged 19 years,
7. Kalu Khan S/o Rawat Khanji, Aged 77 years,
8. Janubanu W/o Kalu Khanji, Aged 74 years, All By Caste
Musalman Moila, Resident Of Modoli, Tehsil Bheenmal,
District Jalore.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Keshu Lal S/o Ganesh Lal, By Caste Luhar, Resident Of
Badarda, Tehsil Rajsamand, District Rajsamand Raj.
Driver And Owner- Pickup No. Rj-30-Ga-1660
2. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager, Abhay Chamber Jodhpur, Tehsil And District
Jodhpur Raj. Insurer - Pickup No. Rj-30-Ga-1660
----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Khatri and
Mr. Digvijay Singh Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.P. Goswami

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

15/01/2025
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and award dated 22.02.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bheenmal, District Jalore in MAC Case No.87/2011

(99/2014) whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim

(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:36:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2676] (2 of 8) [CMA-1776/2017]

petition and exonerated respondent No.2 Insurance Company from

its liability.

The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment/award dated

22.02.2017 awarded a sum of Rs.10,06,200/- in favour of the

claimants alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of

filing of claim petition i.e. 06.09.2011.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was preferred

by the claimants with the submission that on 27.05.2011, Mohd.

Khan was travelling towards Bheenmal in his loading tempo

bearing registration No.RJ-24-GA-0680. Upon reaching near

Mudtara-Abantri Fanta, a transport vehicle/Pickup bearing

registration No.RJ-30-GA-1660, owned by respondent No. 1,

approached from behind which being driven rashly and

negligently, caused a collision resulting in the fatality of Mohd.

Khan due to sustained injuries. FIR No.73/2011 pertaining to this

incident was lodged at Police Station Modra.

The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured

with respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.

3. The appellants-claimants are dependants of deceased Mohd.

Khan. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of

Rs.50,40,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal after framing the

issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after

hearing the counsel for the parties, while assessing the monthly

income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000/-, awarded total

compensation of Rs.10,06,200/- in favour of the claimants-

appellants, the break-up of which is as under:

(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:36:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2676] (3 of 8) [CMA-1776/2017]

1. Income per month {after Rs.5,200/-
addition of future prospects
(30%) and deductions for
personal and living expenses
(1/5) in the monthly income of
Rs.5,000}
2. Loss of Annual Income (as per Rs.5,200 x 12 x 13
the age of 46 to 50 years of the = Rs.8,11,200/-
deceased, multiplier of 13).
3. Under the head of 'Consortium' Rs.1,70,000/-

4. Under the head of 'Funeral Rs.25,000/-
expenses'
5. Total amount of compensation Rs.10,06,200/-
awarded by the Tribunal

Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @ 7% per annum

from the date of filing of the claim petition.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

learned Tribunal erroneously exonerated the Insurance Company

from the liability to pay the compensation on the premise that the

driver of the vehicle in question was holding the license for a light

motor vehicle whereas he was driving a transport vehicle and

hence, the same was a breach of the policy condition.

5. Learned counsel submitted that as settled by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd.; (2017) 14 SCC 663 and affirmed by larger

Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Bajaj Alliance General

Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi & Ors.; 2024 INSC 840,

(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:36:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2676] (4 of 8) [CMA-1776/2017]

a person holding a license for light motor vehicle is also entitled to

drive a transport vehicle weighing not more than 7,500 kilograms.

6. Learned counsel, on quantum of compensation, submitted

that the learned Tribunal committed a significant error in its

adjudication by providing insufficient compensation qua the

conventional heads.

7. No other grounds have been raised by the counsel for the

appellants-claimants.

8. Per contra learned counsel for respondents submitted that

the learned Tribunal erroneously considered the future prospects

of the deceased @30% whereas same ought to be considered

@25% as per the income and age of the deceased.

9. So far as the ratio laid down in Mukund Dewangan's case

(supra) is concerned, learned counsel is not in a position to refute

the same.

10. Heard the counsels and perused the material available on

record.

11. So far as the exoneration of the respondent Insurance

Company by the learned Tribunal is concerned, the same deserves

interference in light of the law settled in Mukund Dewangan's

case (supra) and further affirmed in Bajaj Alliance's case

(supra).

In Mukund Dewangan's case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex

Court held as under:

"46......(i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in

Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport

vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section

(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:36:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2676] (5 of 8) [CMA-1776/2017]

2(21) read with Section2(15) and 2(48). Such

transport vehicles are not excluded from the

definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of

Amendment Act No. 54 of 1994.

(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross

vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed

7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also

motor car or tractor or a road-roller, 'unladen

weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and

holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light

motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is

competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus,

the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed

7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller,

the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed

7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement

on the licence is required to drive a transport

vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated

above. A licence issued under Section10(2)(d)

continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994

and 28.3.2001 in the form."

12. Admittedly, gross weight of the vehicle involved in the

present accident is 2750 Kilograms. Therefore, the same would

definitely be governed by the ratio laid down in Mukund

Dewangan's case (supra). The finding on Issue No.3 as recorded

by the learned Tribunal is hence reversed. It is hereby held that

the Insurance Company would be liable to indemnify the owner

(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:36:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2676] (6 of 8) [CMA-1776/2017]

and to pay the compensation amount as awarded to the

claimants.

13. Qua the issue of the deceased's future prospects, this Court

draws upon the precedent set in the case of Sarla Verma and

Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors.; (2009) 6

SCC 121 and holds that addition for the deceased's future

prospects will be at the rate of 25% as it is an admitted case that

deceased was self-employed and was of around 46 years of age at

the time of the accident.

14. Coming on to the amount to be awarded under the

conventional heads, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

Ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680 has fixed the amount payable under

the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium

and funeral expenses to be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and

Rs.15,000/- respectively.

Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Magma

General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram;

(2018) 18 SCC 130 interpreted 'consortium' to be a

compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium,

parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Therefore, this

Court is of the opinion that the amount as determined under

conventional heads shall be payable to each of the claimants.

15. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed and the

impugned judgment/award dated 22.02.2017 passed by Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Bheenmal, District Jalore in MAC Case

No.87/2011 (99/2014) is modified to the extent that the

(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:36:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2676] (7 of 8) [CMA-1776/2017]

appellants-claimants shall be entitled to the following

compensation:

1 Income per month (after Rs.5,000/-
addition of future prospects
(25%) and deductions for per-
sonal and living expenses (1/5)
in the monthly income of
Rs.5,000)
2 Loss of Annual Income (as per Rs.5,000 x 12 x 13
the age of 46 years of the de- = Rs.7,80,000/-
ceased, multiplier of 13).
3 Under the head of 'consortium' Rs.40,000 x 8 =
Rs.3,20,000/-
4 Under the head of 'Funeral Rs.15,000/-
expenses'
5 Under the head of 'Loss of Rs.15,000/-
Estate'
6 Total amount of compensation Rs.11,30,000 /-
7 Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs.10,06,200/-
8 Enhanced amount of Rs.11,30,000/-
compensation - Rs.10,06,200/-
--------------------

Rs. 1,23,800/-

16. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum

from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment

is made. The respondent insurance company is directed to deposit

the award amount (if not paid by the owner/driver yet) and the

enhanced amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this

order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of this order till actual realization. Upon

deposition, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to

the claimants in terms of the award.

17. It is hereby clarified that if the respondent no.1 owner has