Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 138 (RAJ)

Jawahar Singh v. Sumitra

2006-01-12

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.These three appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, one on behalf of claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation, second on behalf of the vehicle owner for shifting his liability to make the payment of compensation on the Insurance Company and third on behalf of Insurance Company for restricting its liability to indemnify the liability of the insured, are directed against the judgment/ award dated 28th September, 1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neen-ka-thana, District Sikar in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 3/1988, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,76,800/- in favour of the claimants, in respect of death of Kanhaiya Lal, who died in motor vehicle accident, which took place on 7th December, 1978. 2. Learned Counsel for the claimants contended that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 600/- per month, but assessed dependency amount as Rs. 300/- per month only. He contended that there were four family members of the deceased Kanhaiya, therefore, the Tribunal committed an illegality in deducting l/3rd amount for personal expenses of the deceased. His submission is that at the most 1/ 4th amount could have been deducted for personal expenses of the deceased and dependency amount could have been assessed as Rs. 450/ - per month for calculating the amount of compensation. 3. Learned Counsel for the vehicle owner contended that the Insurance Company in its reply did not take a specific plea that their liability was limited, therefore, the Tribunal committed an illegality in restricting the liability of the Insurance Company upto Rs. 75,000/- only. He further contended that the owner of the vehicle NAW-1 Nagar Mai was examined in the present case, but he was not cross-examined by the Insurance Company on the question of limit of liability, therefore, it should be presumed that the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited. 4. The Insurance Company filed an appeal on the ground that their liability should be restricted upto Rs. 5,000/- only in the fact and circumstances of the present case. 5. I have considered the rival submission of the learned Counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned judgment as well as the record of the Tribunal. 6. 4. The Insurance Company filed an appeal on the ground that their liability should be restricted upto Rs. 5,000/- only in the fact and circumstances of the present case. 5. I have considered the rival submission of the learned Counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned judgment as well as the record of the Tribunal. 6. Learned Tribunal while deciding Issue No. 2 considered the statements of AW 1 Ganpat, AW-3 Gordhan and NAW 1 Nagar Mai and NAW 2 Satya Narain, about the income of the deceased and came to a conclusion that the evidence of applicant is more reliable, than the evidence of the non-applicants and consequently, assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 600/- per month in the year 1978. The Tribunal deducted Rs. 100/- per month as rent of the shop and Rs. 200/- per month for the personal expenses of the deceased and assessed Rs, 300/- per month as dependency amount and looking to the age of the deceased as 32 years and average span of life as 70 years, applied the multiplier of 38 years and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,36,800 (300 x 12 x 38) for loss of income and further awarded Rs. 25,000/- for "love and affection" and under other heads, thus, total compensation of Rs. 1,76,800/- was awarded. 7. The Tribunal decided Issue No. 3 in favour of the applicants and while passing final award in part No. 29 of the impugned judgment considered the statements of NAW 3 Vijendra Singh Kankard, who stated that their liability limited upto Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 75,000/-, as written in the insurance policy was wrongly mentioned. The Tribunal held that the liability of the Insurance Company in the present case as per Ext. A-l is Rs. 75,000/-. 8. The learned Tribunal after considering the statements of witnesses of both the parties on the income of the deceased rightly assessed the income of the deceased and rightly assessed the dependency amount. This is a case relating to the year 1978 and looking to the income of the deceased as Rs. 600/- per month, the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,76,800/-awarded in the present case, is just and reasonable. 9. So far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, it is clear from Ext. A-l that the liability of the Insurance Company was mentioned as Rs. 75,000/-. 600/- per month, the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,76,800/-awarded in the present case, is just and reasonable. 9. So far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, it is clear from Ext. A-l that the liability of the Insurance Company was mentioned as Rs. 75,000/-. NAW 3 Vijendra Singh, in his statement stated that the liability of the Insurance Company was Rs. 50,000/- but there was no reference of it in Ext. A-l, whereas Rs. 75,000/- was specifically mentioned in it, therefore, I find that the Tribunal was right in holding the liability of the Insurance Company upto Rs. 75,000/- in the present case. 10. In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in any of the appeals and all three appeals are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeals dismissed. *******