Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 58 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Company v. Arjun

2005-01-07

DALIP SINGH

body2005
Judgment Dalip Singh, J.-The matter comes up for orders on the stay application however, at the joint request made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard for final hearing as the arguments of the stay application and the main appeal are same. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Ram Singh met with an accident on 27.05.2000, which involved two motor vehicles i.e. Trucks; one bearing registration No. RJ01 G 4526 and another one bearing registration No. PB7-B-8695. The first truck was insured with the appellant i.e. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and the later truck was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. Jaipur i.e. respondent No. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputali, while deciding the issue Nos. 3 and 5 has held that the age of deceased was 22 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 3,000/-per month. Since, the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident a multiplier of 12 was applied in consonance with the Judgment of Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gyan Chand vs. Parmanand, 2003 (1) TAC 490. Taking into consideration the fact that the age of the parents of the deceased was 48 and 55 years respectively. Accordingly, the Tribunal under the head of loss of income awarded a sum of Rs. 4,32,000/-(Rs. four lac thirty two thousand only) (3,000 x 12 x 12). 3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the income of Rs. 3,000/-per month has been arbitrarily arrived at by the Tribunal as there was no material on record to support the same other than the oral testimony. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that as per the provisions contained in the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, in the absence of any cogent evidence the national income of Rs. 15,000/-per annum ought to have been taken into consideration. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the award passed by the Tribunal and has contended that even assuming that the oral evidence led by the claimants is not taken in to consideration and in that view of the matter, assuming the notional income to be Rs. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the award passed by the Tribunal and has contended that even assuming that the oral evidence led by the claimants is not taken in to consideration and in that view of the matter, assuming the notional income to be Rs. 15,000/-as has been provided under the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it cannot be lost sight of that the future prospectus of earning would certainly have increased the income of the deceased and have relied upon the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the Case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas & Ors., 1994 ACJ 01, wherein the income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 1,032/-per month was on the basis of future prospects enhanced to Rs. 2,000/-per month which is approximately double taking into consideration the future prospects and the compensation so awarded on the basis of assuming the increased income. In the first instance, the learned Tribunal has come to the finding with regard to the income of the deceased on the basis of the evidence led by the claimants and has also come to the finding that the deceased at the time of death was earning Rs. 3,000/-per month and on the basis of the notional increase in the income due to future prospects, the income was assessed as Rs. 4,500/-per month. The 1/3 rd amount out of the aforesaid income was deducted towards the personal expenses and Rs. 3,000/-was assessed as the loss of income to the claimants. Thus, on the basis of the evidence, the learned Tribunal has come to the cogent finding regarding the income of the deceased. AW. 1 Arjun Singh, the father of the deceased has stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 250/-per day while working on the Truck. Similarly, AW. 2 Shambhu Dayal, has stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 6 to 7,000/-(Rs. six to seven thousand) per month and was engaged in the business of Trading Masonery Stone and Sand (the material used in construction work). The aforesaid evidence was led on behalf of the claimants and remained unrebutted. As the Tribunal has come to the finding, which cannot be said to be absolutely arbitrary and which has been scaled down the dependency to be Rs. 3,000/-per month. The aforesaid evidence was led on behalf of the claimants and remained unrebutted. As the Tribunal has come to the finding, which cannot be said to be absolutely arbitrary and which has been scaled down the dependency to be Rs. 3,000/-per month. In this view of the matter, the award passed by the learned Tribunal appears to be just and proper for the death of the deceased son of the claimant Ram Singh, who died at a young age of 22 years in the accident. 5. Since, in this case, the finding has been arrived at on the basis of the evidence that too was led by the claimants and it has been proved that he was an earning person, engaged in the business of construction material. The provision contained in the structured formula mentioned in the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 upon which reliance has been placed by the appellant that the notional income alone of Rs. 15,000/-p.a. should have been considered has no application in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as the deceased was an earning member and para 6 of the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which was relied upon is in respect of "non earning persons" which is not applicable in this case. It has been stated at the bar that in accordance with the award passed by the Tribunal according to which 50% of the amount was directed to be paid by the appellant Oriental Insurance Company and the balance 50% amount by the respondent No. 6, the National Insurance Company. The respondent No. 6, the National Insurance Company Ltd. Jaipur has not preferred any appeal and on the contrary has paid the aforesaid 50% of the amount to the claimants. In this view of the matter, this appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. 6. In view of the fact that the appeal itself , has been dismissed, the stay order passed by this Court on 27.05.2003 stands vacated and the stay application No. 1890/2003 filed with the appeal also stands dismissed. 7. There shall be no order as to costs.