Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Shri Padma Ram (2025:Rj-Jd:22100) on 8 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:22100]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 813/2025
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisonal Office Near Kila
Parking Ring Road, Dhibha Pada, Jaisalmer (Raj) Through T.p.
Hub United India Insurance Company Division Office, Bhati N
Plaza, Barkatulla Khan Stadium Lane, Pal Road, Jodhpur.
(Insurer Of Swift Car No. RJ 15 CA 1323)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Shri Padma Ram S/o Shri Jiya Ram, Aged About 54
Years, Meghwal Pada, Jaisalmer Distt. Jaisalmer (Raj.)
2. Smt Dheli Devi Spouse/o Shri Padma Ram, Aged About
41 Years, Meghwal Pada, Jaisalmer Distt. Jaisalmer (Raj.)
3. Vijay Kumar S/o Late Shri Prem Kumar, Chandi Pada,
Tehsil And Distt. Jaisalmer (Raj.) (Driver And Owner Of
Swift Car No. Rj 15 Ca 1323) (Licence No. Rj
15/20150003476)
4. Vijay Kumar S/o Late Shri Prem Kumar, Chandi Pada,
Tehsil And Distt. Jaisalmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahesh Joshi.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
08/05/2025
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 19.11.2024
passed in MACT Case No.38/2024 (29/2021) by learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaisalmer, the appellant-Insurance
Company is before this Court by way of this appeal seeking
quashing of the same. By the impugned judgment, the learned
Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.12,89,360/- along with
interest @ 6% p.a.
2. Brief facts first. Ajay Kumar, a resident of Valmiki Colony,
Jaisalmer, lodged a written report with the police stating that on
the night of 28.12.2019 at around 11:00 PM, his younger brother,
[2025:RJ-JD:22100] (2 of 8) [CMA-813/2025]
while returning on his scooter (RJ 15 SE 5797) after dropping a
friend at Kishanghat, met with an accident near Mahadev Hotel. A
white Swift car (RJ 15 CA 1323) traveling ahead of him suddenly
turned at high speed without signaling, causing a collision. As a
result, his brother and a pillion rider, Kamal Kishore Meghwal, fell
from the scooter and sustained serious injuries. Both were
referred to Jodhpur for treatment, but Kamal Kishore later
succumbed to his injuries. An FIR was registered at the Jaisalmer
police station, and following investigation, a charge sheet was filed
against the car driver, Vijay Kumar.
2.1 The legal heirs of the deceased Kamal Kishore filed a claim
petition seeking compensation of ₹1,86,10,000 for his death
caused by the motor vehicle accident.
3. The appellant insurance company contested the claim. Stand
taken was that the accident was a result of the deceased's own
negligence, alleging he rear-ended the car, thus constituting
contributory negligence. On this basis, they denied liability for
compensation.
4. Learned Tribunal framed four issues, English translation of
the same are as below:-
"1. Whether on 28.12.2019 at around 11:00 PM, near Mahadev
Hotel in the jurisdictional area of Village Jaisalmer, on the
road leading from Gandhi Colony to Transport Nagar,
Respondent No. 01, by driving his personally owned vehicle,
Swift Car No. RJ-15-CA-1323, at a high speed, negligently, and
recklessly, suddenly turned the vehicle without giving any
signal or indicator, resulting in a collision with Scooter No. RJ-
15-SE-5797, and consequently, the scooter rider Kamal
Kishore sustained serious injuries and later died during
treatment in Jodhpur ?
(Liability of the petitioner)
2. Whether the petitioners, due to the death of the deceased
Kamal Kishore in the said accident, are entitled to receive a
compensation amount of ₹1,86,10,000/- (Rupees One Crore
[2025:RJ-JD:22100] (3 of 8) [CMA-813/2025]
Eighty-Six Lakhs Ten Thousand only) along with interest,
jointly and severally from the respondents ?
(Liability of the petitioner)
3. Whether, based on the grounds and objections mentioned in
the reply submitted by the respondents, the compensation claim
application filed by the petitioners is liable to be rejected ?
(Responsibility of the respondents)
4. Relief?"
4.1. In support of the petition, the claimants examined two
witnesses, including Padma Ram (AW-2), and submitted
documentary evidence marked Exhibit 1 to 20. The appellant
insurance company produced NAW-1 Deepak Gurjar as their sole
witness. Based on the respective evidence adduced by the parties,
the learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the
claimants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment
dated 19.11.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Jaisalmer, is legally unsound and factually flawed. The findings
recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to the evidence on record
and overlook key aspects of the case, making the impugned award
liable to be set aside.
5.1 He contends that the Tribunal committed a serious error in
deciding Issue No.1 against the appellant. The Tribunal wrongly
relied on the testimony of AW-1 Padma Ram, who was admittedly
not an eyewitness to the accident. His statement, being based on
hearsay, ought not to have been treated as credible evidence.
Moreover, the mechanical inspection (MTO) report clearly reveals
that the scooter was damaged at the front, and the Swift car had
damage to its left gate. This indicates that the scooter, driven by
the deceased, struck the car from behind--suggesting negligence
on the part of the scooter rider for failing to maintain a safe
[2025:RJ-JD:22100] (4 of 8) [CMA-813/2025]
distance. It is well settled that the mere filing of a charge sheet
against the driver of the car does not automatically establish his
sole liability. The Tribunal's failure to properly appreciate the MTO
findings and the physical damage pattern has resulted in a
perverse finding on negligence.
5.2 He argues that the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's
monthly income at ₹5,850 as that of an unskilled labourer and in
treating him as a major aged 18 years. According to the Jan
Aadhaar Card submitted by the claimants, the deceased was born
on 23.04.2002, making him just over 17 years and 8 months old
at the time of the accident. The Tribunal's assumption of majority
is thus factually incorrect. Furthermore, while calculating the
compensation, the Tribunal deducted one-third of the income
towards personal expenses, whereas, being a bachelor, the proper
deduction should have been one-half, as per settled law. This error
has led to an inflated award which requires correction.
5.3 Additionally, he submits that the Tribunal overlooked the
legislative intent behind Section 168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
This provision casts a statutory duty on the Tribunal to conduct a
meaningful inquiry and determine compensation that is just and
reasonable, after assessing the relationship between the deceased
and the claimants and evaluating the extent of dependency. The
Tribunal's approach lacked depth and failed to examine these
crucial aspects. It neither scrutinized the eligibility of the
claimants nor addressed the principles of just compensation in
their true spirit. As such, the award rendered is not only excessive
but contrary to the legislative mandate, and therefore deserves to
be quashed.
[2025:RJ-JD:22100] (5 of 8) [CMA-813/2025]
6. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the contentions of
learned counsel which are more or less on the same lines as the
grounds taken in the pleadings and perused the case file. I shall
now proceed to deal with the merits and demerits thereof and
render my opinion based on the discussion and reasoning
contained hereafter.
7. Perusal of the impugned award inter alia reveals that the
burden of proving Issue No. 2 lay with the petitioners. The post-
mortem report and Adhar card confirmed that the deceased was
18 years old at the time of the accident in 2019. After evaluating
the evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent act of the car driver, based on the
statement of PW-1 and supporting criminal records. It accepted
the monthly income of the deceased as ₹5,850/- and awarded
compensation of ₹12,89,360/- along with interest at 6% p.a. The
objections raised by the insurance company were found to be
without merit and were rejected. As the claimant could not prove
his income, the minimum wage for an unskilled worker in 2019,
₹5,850/month, was used for calculation. It was assumed that 1/3
of this income was spent personally by the deceased, and 2/3
(₹3,900/month) was contributed to the petitioners. Applying the
multiplier of 18, the annual loss of income was calculated as
₹8,42,400/-. Following National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay
Sethi, a 40% increase for future income was added (₹3,36,960/-).
Additional compensation included ₹15,000/- for funeral expenses,
₹15,000/- for property loss, and ₹40,000 each to the two
claimants for filial consortium, leading to a total compensation of
[2025:RJ-JD:22100] (6 of 8) [CMA-813/2025]
₹12,89,360/-. The petitioners' claim for any additional amount
was rejected due to lack of supporting evidence.
8. Having perused the record and heard learned counsel for the
appellant, I may observe at the very thresh hold that even if there
may minor computation mistake qua deduction of 1/2 of the
notional income of the deceased as personal expenses, as
canvassed, given the overall computation viz-a-viz age of the
deceased being 18 years at the time of the accident, the
compensation determined by the learned Tribunal is rather on the
lower side. The Tribunal's judgment is otherwise legally sound,
factually supported, and in confirmation with with judicial
precedents. The appellant's grounds for appeal--relating to
negligence, income assessment, age, and statutory compliance--
lack merit and do not establish any perversity or illegality in the
award. The compensation is reasonable, and minor errors (e.g.,
deduction percentage or age assumption) are inconsequential in
the overall context. Appeal deserves to be dismissed to uphold the
Tribunal's well-reasoned decision to ensure the compensation
already for the claimants. Being so, I find no grounds to interfere
for the reasons stated in details here in after based on analysis of
the facts, evidence, and legal principles involved.
9. Learned Tribunal's conclusion that the accident was caused by
the rash and negligent driving of the Swift car driver (Vijay
Kumar) is well-founded. The testimony of AW-1 Padmaram,
though not an eyewitness, is corroborated by substantial
documentary evidence, including the written report (Exhibit-1),
FIR (Exhibit-2), charge sheet (Exhibit-3), site map (Exhibit-5),
seizure memos (Exhibits-6 and 7), and post-mortem report
[2025:RJ-JD:22100] (7 of 8) [CMA-813/2025]
(Exhibit-12). These documents collectively establish that the car
driver suddenly turned without signaling, causing the collision. The
appellant's reliance on the mechanical inspection (MTO) report to
argue contributory negligence (i.e., the scooter striking the car
from behind) is insufficient to contradict the Tribunal's finding. The
damage patterns (front damage to the scooter and left gate
damage to the car) do not conclusively prove the scooter rider's
negligence, as the sudden turn by the car could still be the
primary cause. The Tribunal's reliance on the charge sheet, filed
against the car driver after a police investigation, further
strengthens the finding of negligence.
10. The appellant's sole witness, NAW-1 Deepak Gurjar, admitted
in cross-examination that a charge sheet was filed against the car
driver for negligent driving, undermining the appellant's claim of
the scooter rider's sole or contributory negligence. The Tribunal
thus rejected the appellant's objection on this ground, and rightly
so.
11. The Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's monthly income
at ₹5,850, based on the notional income of an unskilled worker in
2019, does not appear to be reasonable, however, for lack of
specific evidence proving higher earnings the Tribunal adopted
rather over cautious approach. When direct evidence is absent,
the minimum wages merely serve as a guideline rather than a
rigid formula. Reference may be had to Supreme Court
rendition in Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir & Ors.: (2015) 7
Supreme Court Cases 252. Be that as it may, claimants are
since not in appeal and this Court shall refrain to put the insurance
company to the consequences thereof.
[2025:RJ-JD:22100] (8 of 8) [CMA-813/2025]
12. The appellant's contention that the Tribunal erred in
deducting only one-third of the income for personal expenses
(instead of one-half, as typical for a bachelor) may have some
merit. However, the I am since of the opinion that the overall
compensation of ₹12,89,360 is on the lower side, given the then
actual prevailing daily wage rates (₹600-900/- day or ₹12,000/-to
15,000/- per month for a daily wager), therefore, it is deemed
appropriate to not interfere with the award.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the Tribunal
erred in treating the deceased as 18 years old, as his Jan Aadhaar
Card indicates he was 17 years and 8 months at the time of the
accident. Even if this is factually correct, the error is minor and
does not materially affect the compensation calculation. The
multiplier of 18, as per Sarla Verma, applies to the age group of
15-20 years, so the Tribunal's assumption of 18 years is within
the correct range. This minor discrepancy does not warrant setting
aside the award.
14. As an upshot, dismissed.
15. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
3-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
