Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harchanda @ Harchand Meena & Ors vs Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr on 21 March, 2018
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 456 / 2016
1. Harchanda @ Harchand Meena S/o Kana @ Khana Meena, aged
about 53 years.
2. Smt. Ghisi Devi W/o Harchand @ Harchanda Meena, aged
about 50 years.
3. Ram Prasad S/o Harchand @ Harchanda Meena, aged about 33
years,
4. Ramesh S/o Harchand @ Harchanda Meena, aged about 29
years,
All R/o Bhawanipura, Tehsil Jajajpur, District Bhilwara. At
present residing at Shrinath Street, Kanwakheda Choraha, Shastri
Nagar, Kanwakheda, Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. through Manager,
Maker Tower, Second Floor, Nityanand Nagar, Queens Road,
Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.
- Insurance Company
2. Jai Singh Meena S/o Ramesh Prasad Meena, R/o Pancha Ka
Bada, Tehsil Jajajpur, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
Owner & Driver
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hemant Bhati for Mr. Sanjay Nahar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Singhal
_____________________________________________________
JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
21/03/2018
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants for
enhancement of the amount awarded by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara vide judgment and award dated
27.10.2015 in Motor Accident Claim Case No.299/2011.
(2 of 5)
[CMA-456/2016]
Briefly the facts in the case are that deceased Jai Singh while
driving the motorcycle on 06.08.2010 was hit by a Maruti Car
bearing registration No.RJ-06-CA-4926 being driven rashly and
negligently by the respondent No.2. In the said accident Jai Singh
sustained grievous injuries and was taken to the Hospital where
he succumbed to injuries on 18.08.2010. At the time of the death,
Jai Singh was of 26 years of age.
In these circumstances, the appellants preferred a claim
petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara being
Motor Accident Claim Case No.299/2011 for grant of
compensation. The reply was filed on behalf of the respondents
denying the allegations in the claim petition. Thereafter, on
completion of the pleadings the learned Tribunal framed the
issues.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal
decided the claim petition of the appellants and awarded a sum of
Rs.4,31,000/- in favour of the appellants and directed the
respondents to pay an interest @ 6% per annum on the amount
awarded.
Assailing the judgment and award aforesaid, learned counsel
for the appellants submits that while computing the award the
amount towards the future prospects have not been taken into
consideration by the learned Tribunal. Further the monthly
income of Rs.3,000/- of the deceased is on the lower side as the
minimum wages in the year 2010 were Rs.3,510/- per month.
Therefore on both these counts the counsel for the appellant
submits that the award impugned requires re-computation and
(3 of 5)
[CMA-456/2016]
required to be suitably enhanced. He further submits that in
pursuance of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors., the amount has not been
computed and since the deceased was of the age of 26 years,
therefore, multiplier of 17 is required to be applied in the present
case. Therefore, the present award needs to be recomputed.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Insurance company
has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellants and submits that the award passed by
the learned Tribunal is just and proper and all the relevant facts at
the time of passing the award have been taken into consideration
by the learned Tribunal and, therefore, the award impugned does
not call for any interference and the same has been passed in
consonance with the provisions of law. He further submits that on
the enhanced amount the rate of interest should also not exceed
more than 6%. He further submitted that at the time of decision
of the present case whatever was admissible under law has been
granted to the appellants, therefore, he prays that the present
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the opinion
that in view of the constitutional Bench judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of S.L.P. (Civil) Case No. 25590/2014
(National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors.)
reported in 2017/ACJ/2700, 2017(4)J.L.J.R. 275, 2017(4)P.L.J.R.
261, the computation which is required to be done in the present
case is as under:-
(4 of 5)
[CMA-456/2016]
For future 40% of Rs.3510/- Rs. 1404/-
prospects:-
(Income of
deceased)
Rs. 3510/- + Rs. 1404/- Rs. 4914/-
Amount to be deducted as Rs. 4914/- / 1/2 = Rs.
spent on himself. 2457/-
(Since deceased was
Bachelor)
Dependence Amount Rs. 4914 - Rs. 2457 =
Rs. 2457/-
The age of deceased was 26 years therefore, a multiplier of
17 will be used.
(I) Compensation due to 2457 x 12 x 17 Rs. 5,01,228/-
death
(II) For the Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
(III) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs. 5,31,228/-
Consequently, in view of the calculation made above, the
appellants are entitled for compensation of 5,31,228/-. Since, the
amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal, Bhilwara vide order dated 27.10.2015 has
already been paid, the difference of amount should be paid to the
appellants. The appellants are also entitled to an interest @ 7.5%
on the enhanced income from the date of filing of the application.
The difference of amount be paid with an interest @ 7.5% p.a.
within a period of two months from today.
(5 of 5)
[CMA-456/2016]
The present Misc. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR), J.
Ramesh/66