Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. ... vs Roshanlal And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:21229) on 1 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:21229]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1605/2018
Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Unit No.
401, 4Th Floor, Sangam Complex, 127, Andheri Kurla Road,
Andheri East, Mumbai- 400055 Vehicle No. Mh-02-Pa-1447Policy
No. Ugsia/posweb/0034799 And Duration From 14.06.2014 To
13.06.2015
----Appellant
Versus
1. Roshan Lal S/o Umedilal Mewara, Mada Ki Bassi, Diver,
Rajsamand.
2. Shri Kamlesh Dass S/o Girdhari Dass ., Nawal Singh Ka
Kheda, Amet, Rajsamand. Driver Of The Insured
Vehicle No. Mh-02-Pa-1447
3. Smt. Hetal V Limbachiya W/o Vijay Bhai Limbachiya,
R/o Shop No. 1, Krishan Kunj Near Shivshankar
Mandir, Behind Vimal Showroom, S.v Road, Malad
West , Mumbai. Owner Of The Insured Vehicle No. Mh-
02-Pa-1447
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aditya Singhi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
01/05/2025
1. Aggrieved by the award dated 11.01.2018 passed in MACT
Case No. 240/2015 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Rajsamand, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the
present appeal, seeking to set aside the award and to be
absolved from the liability of paying compensation of
Rs.7,69,000/- to the claimant.
[2025:RJ-JD:21229] (2of 13) [CMA-1605/2018]
2. Brief facts first. On 31.08.2014, while claimant - Roshanlal
and non-claimant Fateh Singh were riding the former's motorcycle
near Tadawada Solankiyan Bus Stand, a black Indica car bearing
registration number MH-02-PA-1447, coming from the opposite
direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with
the motorcycle. Due to the impact, Roshanlal claimant and Fateh
Singh fell off the motorcycle. Roshanlal sustained injuries, while
Fateh Singh remained unhurt.
2.1 The claimant--Respondent No.1--filed a claim petition under
Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking
compensation of Rs. 14,40,000/-. Respondent No.2 was the
alleged driver of the Indica, Respondent No.3 the registered
owner, and the appellant--Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.
Ltd.--the insurer.
2.2 Notice was issued to Respondent No.2 (the alleged driver),
but he failed to submit a reply, and his right to do so was closed.
Respondent No.3, the registered owner of the vehicle, opposed
the claim, asserting that the vehicle had been sold to one Ibrahim
on 14.12.2010 and thus was no longer under his ownership or
control.
2.3 The appellant-Insurance Company also filed reply and
opposed the claim, denying all allegations asserting that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the Indica's driver. It
was asserted that he did not possess a valid driving license at the
time of the incident. It was submitted that the owner had violated
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and therefore,
the insurer bore no liability. Alternatively, it was submitted that
[2025:RJ-JD:21229] (3of 13) [CMA-1605/2018]
the case involved contributory negligence, further negating the
insurer's responsibility.
3. Learned Tribunal framed the five issues for adjudication.
English translation of the same is as follows:
a) Whether the accident occurred on 31.08.2014 due to rash and negligent
driving by Defendant No.1 (driver of the Indica) ?
b) Whether the vehicle was driven with the knowledge, consent, or under the
control of its owner ?
c) Whether the insurer and owner were liable or should be exonerated due
to the preliminary objections raised ?
d) Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation, and if so, the amount
and recipient ?
e) Relief ?
4. Based on the evidence, the learned Tribunal decided all the
issues in favour of the respondent No.1-claimant and awarded
compensation of Rs.7,69,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of filing the claim.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the findings
given by the learned Tribunal are perverse and legally
unsustainable. The Tribunal has failed to properly assess the
circumstances surrounding the claimant's injuries, which were not
caused by the negligent driving of the car but were a result of his
own negligence while riding the motorcycle. The Tribunal's finding
that the accident was caused by the negligence of the car driver is
speculative and unsupported by the site plan, making it legally
unsustainable.
5.1. He submits that the income of the claimant was erroneously
taken as Rs.4914 per month, and his age was incorrectly assumed
[2025:RJ-JD:21229] (4of 13) [CMA-1605/2018]
to be 45 years without any documentary evidence to support
these claims. This erroneous assumption led to the application of
an inappropriate multiplier of 14, which was unjustified in light of
the actual facts.
5.2. He contends that the non-pecuniary grants awarded were
also excessive and contrary to the Supreme Court's guidelines in
Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar, reported in 2011(1) SCC 343, which
limits compensation under certain heads unless supported by
specific medical evidence. In this case, no such medical evidence
was presented, yet the Tribunal granted compensation under
these heads, deviating from the established norms and principles.
The impact of the injury was temporary and not as severe as
indicated by the finding given by the learned Tribunal, further
rendering the compensation awarded under these heads
unsustainable.
5.3. He further contends that the Tribunal also incorrectly
calculated the disability as 40% to the whole body, despite the
absence of medical evidence to support such an assessment. The
injury was temporary, and the lack of expert testimony or a clear
understanding of the disability's permanency undermines the
Tribunal's finding. The calculation of compensation based on this
assumption was grossly inflated and should be quashed.
Additionally, the claimant's medical bills, hospitalization expenses,
and other related costs were awarded without proper supporting
documents, contrary to the directives of the Supreme Court. The
amounts claimed, such as transportation and food expenses,
lacked the necessary bills and receipts, making them unverifiable
and improperly awarded.
[2025:RJ-JD:21229] (5of 13) [CMA-1605/2018]
5.4. He further argues that the Tribunal also awarded
compensation for pain, suffering, loss of happiness, and life
expectancy without proper documentation or evidence to justify
such amounts. These grants are not in line with the guidelines set
forth by the Supreme Court. Further, the claimant's age was
assumed to be 45 years without valid proof, leading to an
incorrect multiplier being applied. This error, combined with the
Tribunal's failure to properly assess the contributory negligence in
the accident, renders the award unfair. The claimant's own
negligence in causing the accident should have been considered in
determining liability, and the insurance company should not bear
the full responsibility for the compensation.
5.5. He submits that the delay in filing the FIR and discrepancies
in the vehicle involved in the accident further cast doubt on the
authenticity of the claimant's version of events. These issues
suggest that the claim may be based on fabricated facts, and the
insurance company should therefore be exonerated from liability.
5.6. He further submits that the claimant's alleged loss of
earnings due to injury was not substantiated by any evidence, as
no witness from his workplace was called to testify. The Tribunal's
conclusion regarding this loss is unfounded and should be
dismissed. Similarly, the transportation expenses were based on a
single document from April 2015, without supporting receipts or
tickets, rendering the claim invalid.
5.7. Consequently, the disability percentage of 40% and the
corresponding compensation of Rs. 7,69,000 is excessive and
unsupported by the evidence. Given the claimant's own
contributory negligence, the insurance company should be
[2025:RJ-JD:21229] (6of 13) [CMA-1605/2018]
completely exonerated from any payment. The Tribunal's award of
an interest @ 9% p.a. is also excessive, considering the current
low rates set by the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, the entire
award should be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent has argued in
support of the award.
7. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
of learned counsel for the appellant and the claimant-respondent.
I shall now proceed to deal with the merits and demerits thereof
and render my opinion based on the discussion and reasoning
contained hereafter.
8. First and foremost, let us have a look at the relevant part of
the award, English translation of which is as below :-
"Issues No. 1 and 2 :
7. The burden of proving this dispute lies with the plaintiff. In
this regard, the petitioner stated in his sworn statements that on
31.08.2014, he was riding motorcycle from his village to Gomati
when a black Indica car (MH 02 PA 1447), written with "Sarpanch"
in front and behind, came at high speed from the opposite direction
and collided with his motorcycle, causing him and his companion,
Fateh singh, to fall. His leg was fractured, but Fateh singh was
unharmed. The petitioner called for help, and the car was stopped by
the people present at the scene. The accident occurred around 7-8
PM due to the car driver's mistake. He was taken to the hospital by
108 ambulance. The petitioner presented police documents (Exhibits
1 to 20A) in support of his statements. In cross-examination, he
stated that the police arrived at the scene, parked the car on the side,
and took the motorcycle to the police station. He denied that the
accident was not caused by the car or that the case was filed just to
claim insurance. He mentioned that when he regained consciousness,
Fateh singh informed him that the police were reluctant to file the
case and asked for an order from the higher authorities, after which
a complaint was filed. Fateh singh's statements corroborated the
petitioner's version. He stated that three years ago, while they were
riding the motorcycle with Roshanlal, a black Indica car (MH 02 PA
1447) coming from the opposite direction collided with them, causing
them to fall. Roshanlal's leg was broken, and they called for an
ambulance and took him to the hospital. The police refused to file the
report the next day and asked for a letter from the SP. The case was
filed on 06.09.14. According to the prosecution documents and the
statements of Roshanlal (Exhibit 1) and Fateh singh (Exhibit 2),
Roshanlal was riding his motorcycle in the correct direction when
[2025:RJ-JD:21229] (7of 13) [CMA-1605/2018]
the respondent's vehicle, driven recklessly and at high speed, hit his
motorcycle from the wrong side. After thorough investigation, the
charge sheet was filed under sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC).
Learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the
First Information Report (FIR) was filed late, and as a result, the
vehicle was wrongly implicated. Learned counsel relied on 2011 RAR
103 (Raj.), 2014 RAR 345 (Raj.), and 2016 (1) ACC 876 (Raj.).
Learned counsel for the petitioner opposed this and argued that the
petitioner had to be admitted to the hospital, which delayed the filing
of the FIR. A discharge card (Exhibit 21) was presented in support of
this argument. The court finds that the delay in filing the FIR was
due to the petitioner's medical treatment. Learned counsel for the
insurance company opposed the judgments cited by learned counsel
for the petitioner. A vehicle hitting another due to negligence and
carelessness, including driving in the wrong direction, clearly shows
recklessness. Therefore, based on police documents, the court
determines that the vehicle's negligent and reckless driving caused
severe injuries to Roshanlal, resulting in permanent disability.
Hence, issues No. 1 and 2 are decided in favor of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
Issue No. 3 :
8. The burden of proving this dispute lies with the respondents 1-
2 and the insurance company. The insurance company's claim that
the accident was not caused by the insured vehicle was addressed in
issues No. 1 and 2. The objections related to compensation will be
considered in issue No.4. No evidence has been presented to support
the objections raised by respondents No.2 and 3. Additionally, no
substantial objection has been presented by respondents No.2 and 3
in the insurance company's reply that would relieve them from the
responsibility of providing compensation. Therefore, issue No.3 is
decided against the respondents, both jointly and separately.
Issue No. 4:
9. The burden of proving this issue lies with the plaintiff. In his
statement, he has said that his leg bone was fractured in the accident.
He had a plaster cast and a rod inserted. When the plaster was
removed, it was discovered that his foot had become infected, and
they advised amputation. He underwent 7-8 operations at Geetanjali
Hospital and is unable to walk. He remained hospitalized for two and
a half years. Now, he moves around with the help of a wooden
support. In cross-examination, he stated that he used to work for
Heeralal, the owner of Bherunath Stone, and maintained accounts
there. He was hospitalized at Stuti Hospital for 7 days. Due to being
unconscious, he cannot say whether the doctors were informed about
the RTA (Road Traffic Accident). He has presented the disability
certificate Exhibit 24, which indicates a total permanent disability of
40% (30 + 12). Earlier, he used to earn ₹10-12 thousand monthly
working at a hardware shop.
10. I have carefully read the aforementioned evidence and have
deliberated upon the arguments presented by the learned advocates
for both parties. In the circumstances of this case, it is found just and
equitable to award the following compensation to the plaintiff:
(A) For Pecuniary Damages (Financial Losses) :
[2025:RJ-JD:21229] (8of 13) [CMA-1605/2018]
1. Actual Medical Expenses: The plaintiff has presented
medical bills Exhibit 25 to Exhibit 234. I have considered
these bills. Upon calculation, these bills amount to
₹2,19,920/-. Some bills may not be available or may be lost;
therefore, it is appropriate to award a rounded-off sum of
₹2,25,000/- to the plaintiff.
2. Incidental Expenses During Hospitalization: In this regard,
the plaintiff remained hospitalized for 53 days. It is
appropriate to award ₹600/- per day for incidental expenses
during hospitalization, totaling ₹31,800/-.
3. Transportation Expenses: The plaintiff has presented bills in
this regard. According to Bills Exhibit 127 and 128, the total
amount comes to ₹37,300/-, which is appropriate to award.
4. For Nutritious Diet: The plaintiff suffered a fracture in his
calf bone. He also sustained injuries to his hand and other
parts of his leg. A fracture in his left wrist has also been
mentioned. Therefore, considering the nature of his injuries
in the circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to award
₹10,000/- for a nutritious diet.
5. Loss of Estate : There is no reliable evidence regarding the
applicant's property that was destroyed in the accident.
However, upon the occurrence of an accident, the plaintiff
would have had clothes and other belongings, for the loss of
which a sum of ₹2,000/- is appropriate to award under this
head.
(B) For Non-Pecuniary Damages (Non-Financial Losses) :
1. Loss of Income During the Treatment Period : In this regard,
the plaintiff has not presented any proof of his income. The
date of the accident is 31.08.2014. The applicant is a 45-
year-old adult. Proof of his educational qualification has not
been presented, but it has been stated that he worked at
Bherunath Stone, keeping accounts. Considering him as an
unskilled worker and the minimum wage according to the
Labor Department's notification of the year 2014, which is
₹189/- per day for 26 working days, his monthly income is
taken as ₹4,914/-. Considering the nature of his injuries, the
period of hospitalization, his 40% permanent disability, and
the long treatment, it is appropriate to award him ₹10,017/-
as compensation for the complete loss of income during his
53 days of hospitalization.
2. Future Loss of Income Due to Permanent Disability: In this
regard, the plaintiff has presented the permanent disability
certificate Exhibit 24, which states a 40% permanent
disability. The doctor has not been presented as a witness to
prove this disability. Therefore, according to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2011 (1) ACTC (SC) 10
Rajkumar v Ajay kumar & Anr., it is appropriate to award
compensation using the multiplier method. Therefore, in the
circumstances of the case, for the 40% permanent disability
of the claimant, his monthly income according to the
[2025:RJ-JD:21229] (9of 13) [CMA-1605/2018]
Minimum Wages Act of 2014 is ₹189/- per day for 26
working days, which amounts to ₹4,914/- per month.
According to the 40% permanent disability, the monthly loss
of income is ₹1,966/- and the annual loss is ₹23,592/-. Since
his age is 45 years, a multiplier of '14' is applied. Thus, upon
calculation using a multiplier of 14, the compensation
amounts to ₹3,30,288/-, rounded off to ₹3,31,000/-, which is
appropriate to award.
3. Future Medical Expenses: There is no evidence to suggest
that the plaintiff's treatment is ongoing continuously, nor is
there any medical evidence to suggest that future medical
expenses will be required. Therefore, no amount can be
awarded under this head.
4. For Pain and Suffering: Due to the injuries to his hand and
leg in the accident, the plaintiff had to endure significant
pain and suffering. He has suffered a permanent disability,
for which it is appropriate to award him ₹41,000/-.
5. Loss of Amenities of Life: In the circumstances of the case,
the claimant sustained injuries to his hand and leg. He
suffered a fracture in his leg and calf bone. Therefore,
considering the 40% permanent disability, it is appropriate
to award ₹40,000/- as compensation.
6. Loss of Expectation of Life and Reduced Longevity:
Considering the nature of the plaintiff's injuries, the period of
his hospitalization, the long treatment, and the permanent
disability, it is appropriate to award him ₹40,000/- as
compensation under this head.
11. Thus, the total compensation amount comes to ₹7,68,117/-,
rounded off to ₹7,69,000/-, which the plaintiff is found entitled to
receive jointly and severally from the opposing parties. Therefore,
Issue No. 4 is decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the
opposing parties in the manner stated above.
Relief :
12. For the misconduct committed by respondent No. 1, respondent
No. 2, being the owner of the vehicle, is liable under the principle of
vicarious liability. However, he had insured his vehicle with
respondent No. 3, the insurance company, validly and effectively as
per Exhibit 20 from 14.06.2014 to 13.06.15. Since the insurance
company has not proven otherwise, it is found liable to pay the
compensation under the principle of contractual liability.
Award
13. As a result, in this petition of the plaintiff, an award is passed
in favor of the plaintiff and against the respondents for a sum of
₹7,69,000/- (Seven lakh sixty-nine thousand rupees), along with
interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition on
21.07.2015 until the date of cheque deposit, to be recovered jointly
and separately. The plaintiff is entitled to receive interest on this
amount at an annual simple rate of 9% from the date of filing the
claim petition to the date of cheque deposit.
[2025:RJ-JD:21229] (10of 13) [CMA-1605/2018]
Respondent No.3 is ordered to present a cheque for the
compensation amount with interest to the plaintiff within one month
from the date of this award. Once the cheque is presented,
appropriate orders for its distribution will be given. Before receiving
the compensation, the plaintiff must submit an affidavit certifying that
no claim petition has been filed anywhere against the driver, owner,
or the insurance company of vehicle number MH 02 PA 1447, nor is
any claim pending, and no compensation has been received from any
other source regarding the injury caused to Roshanlal in this
accident."
9. It would be seen that the contentions raised herein were
also raised before the learned Tribunal. The same were duly and
elaborately dealt with the rejected by the learned Tribunal giving
cogent and convincing reasons consistent with record for it's
conclusions.
10. The learned Tribunal found that the accident on 31.08.2014
was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Indica car
driver (Respondent No. 2), as supported by the claimant's
testimony and that of Fateh Singh, the other witness. The
appellant's contention that the claimant's negligence caused the
accident is not substantiated on record as no evidence was
presented by the respondents to counter the claimant's version.
The Tribunal's reliance on the claimant's evidence, in the absence
of rebuttal evidence, is reasonable and not perverse. The claimant
provided substantial documentary evidence, including 239
documents, such as medical bills (Exhibits 25-234) and a
disability certificate (Exhibit 24), to support his claim. The Tribunal
meticulously calculated pecuniary damages, such as medical
expenses (₹2,25,000), incidental expenses (₹31,800),
transportation costs (₹37,300), and non-pecuniary damages,
including pain and suffering (₹41,000) and loss of amenities
(₹40,000). These awards were based on the evidence presented
[2025:RJ-JD:21229] (11of 13) [CMA-1605/2018]
and in tune with the principles laid out in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar
(2011(1) SCC 343), which allows compensation for loss supported
by evidence.
11. The Tribunal assumed the claimant's monthly income as
₹4,914 based on the 2014 minimum wage for an unskilled worker
(₹189/day for 26 working days), a standard practice when direct
evidence of income is unavailable. The claimant's testimony that
he earned ₹10,000-12,000 monthly was not relied upon due to
lack of corroboration, showing the Tribunal's cautious approach.
The 40% permanent disability owing to amputation and
shortening of leg was supported by the disability certificate
(Exhibit 24), and the application of a multiplier of 14 for a 45-
year-old claimant is consistent with established norms for
calculating future loss of income (₹3,31,000).
12. The appellant alleged contributory negligence by the
claimant and a violation of the insurance policy terms (e.g., invalid
driving license or sale of the vehicle). However, no evidence was
presented to support these claims. Respondent No. 3's assertion
that the vehicle was sold to Ibrahim in 2010 was not
substantiated, and the insurance policy (Exhibit 20) was valid from
14.06.2014 to 13.06.2015, covering the accident date. The
Tribunal correctly held the insurer liable under contractual liability,
as the appellant failed to prove any policy breach. The appellant
argued that non-pecuniary awards (e.g., for pain and suffering,
loss of amenities, and loss of expectation of life) were excessive
and unsupported. However, the Tribunal's awards (₹41,000,
₹40,000, and ₹40,000, respectively) were modest and justified
[2025:RJ-JD:21229] (12of 13) [CMA-1605/2018]
given the claimant's severe injuries, including a fractured leg,
multiple operations, and 40% permanent disability.
13. The appellant's argument regarding the delay of 6 days in
filing the FIR and discrepancies in the vehicle's details does not
seem fatal to the claimant's case. The Tribunal relied on the
claimant's and witness's consistent testimonies and documentary
evidence. Such delays are common in accident cases and do not
necessarily indicate fabrication, especially when corroborated by
other evidence.
14. The appellant's claims of inflated disability, lack of medical
evidence, and unverifiable expenses were not supported by any
evidence. The Tribunal's findings are based on the claimant's
testimony, disability certificate, and medical bills, which are not
effectively under challenge. The total compensation of ₹7,69,000
has been calculated methodically, covering both pecuniary and
non-pecuniary losses, and does not appear excessive given the
claimant's injuries and long-term disability.
15. Thus, the Tribunal's judgment is based on a careful
appreciation of evidence, including witness testimonies and
documentary evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any
gross misapplication of law or misreading of evidence by the
Tribunal that would render the findings perverse or legally
unsustainable. Tribunal's findings are well-reasoned, supported by
evidence and just and equitable. There seems no perversity or
illegality therein. I am inclined to agree with the same No
interference is thus called for to disturb the well reasoned finding
recorded by the learned Tribunal.
[2025:RJ-JD:21229] (13of 13) [CMA-1605/2018]
16. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.
17. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
159-DhananjayS/ Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
