Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Thr Div Office vs Smt Nanchi Devi And Ors on 4 July, 2018
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3781/2017
Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Officer
Incharge, Pagaria Chambers, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur Insurer
Of Bus No. Rj-23P-3666.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Nanchi Devi W/o Late Shri Subhash Meena, aged 24
years, B/c Meena, R/o Dharmpura, Gram Panchayat
Bhambhori, Panchayat Samiti Jhotwara, Jaipur
2. Kumari Rajni D/o Late Shri Subhash Meena, aged 6 years,
Natural Guardianship And Mother Smt. Nanchi Devi W/o
Late Shri Subhash Meena, B/c Meena, R/o Dharmpura,
Gram Panchayat Bhambhori, Panchayat Samiti Jhotwara,
Jaipur
3. Kalu S/o Late Shri Subhash Meena, aged 11 years,
Natural Guardianship And Mother Smt. Nanchi Devi W/o
Late Shri Subhash Meena, B/c Meena, R/o Dharmpura,
Gram Panchayat Bhambhori, Panchayat Samiti Jhotwara,
Jaipur
4. Pappu Ram S/o Shri Prahlad Meena, Dabhpura, Tan
Sanwalpura Shekhawatan, Police Station Ajitgarh, Distt.
Sikar Driver Of Bus No. Rj-23P-3666 At The Time Of
Accident
5. Subhash Chand Saini S/o Shri Moolchand Saini, Dhani
Guwar, Ganeshar, Police Station Neem Ka Thana, Distt.
Sikar Owner Of Bus No. Rj-23P-3666 At The Time Of
Accident
6. Prakash Chand Yadav S/o Shri Rawatram Yadav,
Rawatwala Dokan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, Distt. Sikar
Insured Of Bus No. Rj-23P-3666
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Salecha
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment
(2 of 4) [CMA-3781/2017]
04/07/2018
Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 20.04.2017 passed by the Tribunal, whereby, claim petition filed by the appellant, was allowed.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the records available on the file carefully.
Claimants had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of death of Subhash Meena in the motor-vehicle accident which had occurred on 17.01.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.4 Pappu Ram while driving the offending vehicle.
AW-2 Arjun deposed that on 17.01.2006, he was traveling with Subhash Meena in the offending vehicle. The driver of the offending vehicle was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. At about 5.00 p.m. bus driver suddenly took a turn near their village and as a result, Subhash Meena fell from vehicle and became unconscious. He had suffered injuries on various parts of his body.
Although, in the present case, FIR was registered on 22.01.2006 at the instance of Chhitarmal, but the delay in lodging of the FIR is not fatal to the case of the claimants. Statement of AW-2 inspires confidence. The said witness was cross-examined at length by the opposite side and his statement with regard to manner of accident could not be shaken. As per the documents available on record Subhash Meena remained under treatment from 17.01.2006 onwards. Subhash Meena had suffered spinal injury.
As per Exhibit-12 Subhash Meena was admitted in Sardarmal Khandaka Memorial hospital on 21.01.2006 as a case of spinal (3 of 4) [CMA-3781/2017] injury and was discharged on 23.01.2006. It is also mentioned in the said discharge ticket that the injury had been suffered by the patient in a roadside accident on 17.01.2006.
A perusal of Exhibit-9 reveals that the Subhash Meena had suffered paralysis of both legs. Subhash Meena had died on 21.05.2006. Deceased had suffered serious injuries on his spine as he suffered fracture of various vertebras.
Deceased Subhash Meena was about about 29 years at the time of the accident. Hence, appropriate multiplier liable to be applied to work out the dependency of the claimants would be '17'. There is no documentary evidence on record with regard to the income of the deceased. Hence, the income of the deceased is liable to be assessed, as per the minimum wages prevalent at the relevant time, as fixed by the State. Income of the deceased was liable to be taken as Rs.2,250/- in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State.
Keeping in view the number of the claimants, 1/3rd out of the income of the deceased was liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses.
Thus, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.1,500/- X 12 X 17 = Rs.3,06,000/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive an addition of 40% of the said amount towards future prospects of the deceased and the said amount comes to Rs.1,22,400/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs.24,807/- towards medical bills placed on record with regard to the treatment of the deceased prior to his death. Claimants would (4 of 4) [CMA-3781/2017] be further entitled to receive Rs.1,50,000/- in lump sum towards medical treatment suffered by the deceased prior to his death.
Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.3,06,000/- + Rs.1,22,400/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.24,807/- + Rs.1,50,000/- = Rs.6,58,207/-.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 20.04.2017 is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.6,58,207/- by way of compensation instead of Rs.8,11,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain the same.
(SABINA),J Mohita/58 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)