Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Beena Devi And Ors vs Siyaram Mali And Ors on 18 August, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3465/2017
1. Beena Devi W/o Late Shri Tulsiram, aged about 27 years,
R/o Rambageechi Jamvaramgarh, District Jaipur.
2. Kumari Gunjan Saini D/o Late Shri Tulsiram, aged about
07 years, R/o Rambageechi Jamvaramgarh, District
Jaipur. Minor Through Natural Guardian And Mother Smt.
Meena Devi,
3. Kumari Deepika Saini D/o Late Shri Tulsiram, aged about
06 years, R/o Rambageechi Jamvaramgarh, District
Jaipur. Minor Through Natural Guardian And Mother Smt.
Meena Devi,
4. Ramulal Saini S/o Shri Ghasiram Saini, aged about 62
years, R/o Rambageechi Jamvaramgarh, District Jaipur.
----Appellants/Claimants
Versus
1. Siyaram Mali S/o Shri Seduram Mali, R/o Vill. Asthal,
Tehsil Jamvaramgarh, District Jaipur (owner of Pick Up
No. RJ-13-GA-8860)
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Manager,
Divisional Office 165-B, Nul Kalwar Road, Jagannathpuri,
Near Kanta, Jaipur (Insurance Company of Pick Up No.
RJ-13-GA-8860)
3. Jagdish Saini S/o Shri Seduram Mali, R/o Vill. Asthal,
Tehsil Jamvaramgarh, District Jaipur (Driver of of Pick Up
No. RJ-13-GA-8860)
---- Non-Claimants/Respondents
4. Lalli Devi W/o Shri Ramulal Saini, aged about 52 years, R/o Rambageechi, Jamvaramgarh, District Jaipur.
----Claimant/Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3539/2017
1. Nathuram Mali S/o Shri Ghasiram Maliaged about 47 years, R/o Kharana, Jamvaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur
2. Rakesh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Nathuram Saini aged about 22 years, R/o Kharana, Jamvaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur
----Appellants/Claimants (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 05:13:24 AM) (2 of 9) [CMA-3465/2017] Versus
1. Siyaram Mali S/o Shri Seduram Mali, Village Asthal, Teh.
Jamvaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur (Owner of Pick Up No. RJ-13- GA-8860)
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Throguh Manager, Divisional Office, 165-B, Nul Kalwar Road, Jagannathpuri, Near Kanta, Jaipur (Insurance Company of Pick Up No. RJ-13-GA-8860)
3. Jagdish Saini S/o Shri Seduram Mali, Village Asthal, Teh.
Jamvaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur (Driver of Pick Up No. RJ-13- GA-8860)
----Respondents/Non-Claimants S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4527/2017 United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, Regional Office, 165-B, Nul Kalawad Raod,Jagganathpuri, Kanta Ke Pass, Jaipur through Regional Manager, Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur through its Constituent Attorney. (Insurance Company of Vehicle No. RJ-13-GA-8860)
----Appellant/Non-Claimant Versus
1. Nathuram Mali S/o Shri Ghasiram Mali, aged 47 years, R/o Kharana, Jamravgarh, Dist Jaipur.
2. Rakesh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Nathuram Saini, aged 22 years, R/o Kharana, Jamravgarh, Distt. Jaipur Raj.
----Claimants/Respondents
3. Siyaram Mali S/o Seduram Mali, R/o Village Asthal, Tehsil Jamravgarh, Dist Jaipur (Owner of Pick Up No. RJ-13-GA-8860)
4. Jagdish Saini S/o Shri Seduram Mali, R/o Gram Asthal, Post Thalai, Tehsil Jamravgarh, Dist Jaipur (Driver of Pick Up No. RJ-13-GA-8860)
----Respondents/Non-Claimants S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4529/2017 United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, Regional Office, 165-B, Nul Kalawad Raod,Jagganathpuri, Kanta Ke Pass, Jaipur through Regional Manager, Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur through its Constituent Attorney. (Insurance Company of Vehicle No. RJ-13-GA-8860)
----Appellant/Non-Claimant (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 05:13:24 AM) (3 of 9) [CMA-3465/2017] Versus
1. Beena Devi W/o Late Sh. Tulsiram, aged 27 years, R/o Ram Bagichi, Jamravgarh Dist Jaipur.
2. Ku. Gunjan Saini D/o Late Sh. Tulsiram, aged 07 years, R/o Ram Bagichi, Jamravgarh Dist Jaipur. Minor Through Natural Gaurdian Mother Smt. Beena Saini.
3. Ku. Dipika Saini D/o Late Sh. Tulsiram, aged 06 years, R/o Ram Bagichi, Jamravgarh Dist Jaipur. Minor Through Natural Gaurdian Mother Smt. Beena Saini.
4. Lalli Devi W/o Shri Ramulal Saini, aged 50 years, R/o Ram Bagichi, Jamravgarh Dist Jaipur.
5. Ramulal Saini S/o Shri Ghasi Ram Mali, aged 60 years, R/o Ram Bagichi, Jamravgarh Dist Jaipur.
------Claimants/Respondents
6. Siyaram Mali S/o Seduram Mali, R/o Village Asthal , Tehsil Jamravgarh, Dist Jaipur (Owner Pickup No. RJ-13-GA-8860)
7. Jagdish Saini S/o Shri Seduram Mali, R/o Gram Asthal , Post Thalai, Tehsil Jamravgarh, Dist Jaipur. (Driver Pickup No. RJ-13-GA-8860)
----Respondents/Non-Claimants For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.K. Soni (CMA No. 3465/2017 and CMA No. 3539/2017) Mr. Rizwan Ahmed (CMA No. 4527/2017 and CMA No. 4529/2017) For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.R. Choudhary (CMA No. 3539/2017) Mr. S.K. Soni (CMA No. 4527/2017 and 4529/2017) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Judgment 18/08/2022 All these appeals arise out of the common judgment and award, hence, the same are being decided together by a common judgment.
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 05:13:24 AM)
(4 of 9) [CMA-3465/2017] All the misc. appeals have been filed against the judgment and award dated 27.05.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') by which the claim petition filed by the claimants were partly allowed and compensation was awarded in their favour.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the claimants as well as Insurance Company have preferred instant appeals.
(1) SB CMA No. 4529/2017 (United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Beena Devi and Ors.), (2) SB CMA No. 4527/2017 (United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nathuram Mali and Ors.) and (3) SB CMA No. 3465/2017 (Beena Devi and Ors. Vs. Siyaram Mali and Ors.) Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the accident occurred on 13.06.2015, while the FIR was lodged after a delay of one day in which the name of Nathuram was not mentioned. Counsel further submits that author of FIR was not examined in the witness box which creates serious doubt about the involvement of the vehicle. Counsel submits that it appears that subsequently the vehicle in question was falsely involved to get compensation from the Insurance company. Counsel submits that all these facts were not considered by the Tribunal and the claim petition filed by the claimants has been allowed. Counsel further submits that even otherwise also looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 28 years and also looking to the employment of the deceased, the Tribunal has granted excessive amount under the head of future prospects i.e. 50% while as per (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 05:13:24 AM) (5 of 9) [CMA-3465/2017] the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. :
(2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants were entitled to get the amount of future prospects to the tune of 40% only instead of 50%. Counsel submits that under the conventional head also, exorbitant amount to the tune of Rs. 1,05,000/- has been awarded to the claimants. Counsel submits that as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) under the conventional head, the claimants were entitled to get a lump sum amount of Rs.
70,000/- instead of Rs. 1,05,000/- Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has awarded inadequate amount of compentation which needs suitable enhancement by this Court but he is not in a position to convince the Court that the amount so awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the impugned judgment and award.
This fact is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 13.06.2015 and the FIR was lodged immediately on the next day without loss of time in which the number of the offending vehicle was mentioned. I find no force in the arguments raised by counsel for the Insurance Company that one day delay in lodging the FIR creates doubt about the involvement of the vehicle. There is no force also in the arguments of the counsel for the Insurance (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 05:13:24 AM) (6 of 9) [CMA-3465/2017] Company that the Author of the FIR was not examined in the witness box.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been enacted by the Legislature for the benefits of the dependents/victim in road accident cases who sustained injuries/ or lost their loved ones in road accident. The claim petition cannot be rejected on such technicalities e.g. that the author of the FIR was not examined and there was one day delay in lodging the FIR. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company to make the payment of compensation to the claimants. However, there is substance in the arguments raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are not entitled to get 50% amount under the head of future prospects and the claimants are also not entitled to get exorbitant amount under the conventional head i.e. Rs. 1,05,000/-. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) the claimants are entitled get 40% future prospects and they are entitled to get a lump sum amount of Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional head.
Thus, the award is re-computed as under:-
Annual income (As awarded Rs.1,20,000/- per annum by the Tribunal) Deduction 1/4 towards Rs. 1,20,000 - Rs. 30,000 personal expenses (As = Rs. 90,000 awarded by the Tribunal) Multiplier to be applied 17 90,000 X 17 = Rs.15,30,000/-
40 % towards Future Rs.15,30,000/- + Rs. 6,12,000
Prospects = Rs. 21,42,000/-
Towards Conventional Head Rs. 70,000
Total amount awardable Rs. 21,42,000 + Rs. 70,000
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 05:13:24 AM)
(7 of 9) [CMA-3465/2017]
= Rs. 22,12,000
Excessive amount awarded Rs. 24,00,000/- - Rs.22,12,000/-
by the Tribunal = Rs. 1,88,000/-
Reduced amount of Rs. 1,88,000/-
compensation
The Tribunal is directed to refund the excessive amount of award to the appellant-Insurance Company within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeal No.4529/2017 filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed, the appeal No. 3465/2017 filed by the claimants and the appeal No. 4527/2017 filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed.
Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(4) SB CMA No. 3539/2017 (Nathuram Mali and Anr. Vs. Siyaram Mali and Ors.) Learned counsel for the claimants appellant submits that no amount towards future prospects has been awarded in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Counsel further submits that even under the conventional head a petty amount of Rs. 60,000/- has been awarded while as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to get a lump sum amount of Rs. 70,000/-. Counsel, therefore, prays that re- computation of the award in the present case may be done in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the appellants claimants has correctly taken into (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 05:13:24 AM) (8 of 9) [CMA-3465/2017] consideration the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment dated 27.05.2017 does not call for any interference of this Court.
I have considered the submissions made by both the counsel at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 27.05.2017 passed by the Tribunal as well as the material available on the record.
While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal has not awarded future prospects to the claimants, hence, amount to the extent of 25% is required to be added towards future prospects. In the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) the claimants are also entitled to get a lump sum amount of Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional head instead of Rs. 60,000/-.
Thus, the award is re-computed as under:-
Annual income Rs. 5,000 x12 = Rs.60,000/- per annum Deduction 1/3 towards Rs. 60,000 - Rs. 20,000 personal expenses = Rs. 40,000/-Multiplier to be applied 14
40,000 X 14 = Rs.5,60,000/-
Add 25 per cent towards Rs. 5,60,000 + Rs. 1,40,000 future prospects = Rs.7,00,000/-
Towards conventional head Rs. 70,000/- Total compensation Rs. 7,00,000 + Rs. 70,000 = Rs.
awardable 7,70,000/- Less amount awarded by the Rs. 7,70,000 - Rs. 6,20,000 =
Tribunal for loss of income Rs.1,50,000/-
Enhanced amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- compensation
Thus, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 is enhanced in the present case. The respondent - Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 05:13:24 AM) (9 of 9) [CMA-3465/2017] dated 27.05.2017 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made.
It is further ordered that out of the enhanced amount the Tribunal shall disburse a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the Saving Bank Account of the claimants-appellants and the balance amount of the enhanced compensation be invested in any Nationalized Bank initially for a period of three years and interest accrued on the said amount shall be paid to the appellants-claimants on monthly basis.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ritu/62-65 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 05:13:24 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)