Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 84 (RAJ)

Mukut Tewari v. Ashok Kumar

2006-01-06

N.K.JAIN

body2006
Judgment N.K. Jain, J.- Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. These two appeals, one in respect of death of Shri A.K. Tewari and another in respect of death of Smt. Shyama Tewari, are directed for enhancement of the amount of compensation against the Judgment /award dated 31.03.1993 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded death compensation of Rs. 45,000/-in respect of death of Smt. Shyama Tewari and Rs. 1,10,000/-in respect of death of Shri A.P. Tewari. The Tribunal also awarded compensation for damages to car of Shri A.P. Tewari for a sum of Rs. 51,000/-. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that Tribunal committed an illegality in applying the multiplier of 14 in the case of Smt. Shyama Tewari whereas in view of her age the multiplier of 20 ought to have been applied and if multiplier of 20 would have been applied then in place of Rs. 45,000/-a sum of Rs. 60,000/-would have been awarded by the Tribunal. He further contended that the learned Tribunal assessed the compensation for death of Shri A.P. Tewari to a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-and the Tribunal wrongly deducted Rs. 76,200/-towards personal expenses and car expenses and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,04,000/-only. His contention is that at the most one-third amount could have been deducted for the personal expenses which could have incurred on the deceased and the expenses of car also. Therefore, the amount of compensation should have been 1,40,000/-in place of 1,04,000/-. He also contended that as per insurance policy, which is available on record, it is clear that in respect of claim relating to damages to property, the liability of Insurance Company was up to Rs.50,000/-whereas the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the amount of Rs. 6,000/-only. His contention is that as per insurance policy itself the liability of the Insurance Company was up to Rs. 50,000/-in respect of limit of the amount of Insurance Companys liability under Section II (1)(ii). 4. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that looking to age and income of the deceased the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable. His further contention is that liability of the Insurance Company in respect of damage to property was limited up to Rs. 6,000/-, therefore, the appeals filed by the appellants be dismissed. 5. His further contention is that liability of the Insurance Company in respect of damage to property was limited up to Rs. 6,000/-, therefore, the appeals filed by the appellants be dismissed. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and examined the impugned Judgment as well as record of the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal while deciding Issue No. 2 determined the age of deceased Shyama Devi as 50 years and age of Shri A.P. Tewari as 60 years. The Tribunal in Para 17 of the impugned Judgment calculated the amount of compensation in respect of death of Smt. Shyama Tewari @ 250 per month for 14 years and Rs. 3,000/-for love and affection and thus awarded Rs. 45,000/-. I find that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal committed an illegality in applying the multiplier of 14. The proper multiplier would have been 20 in the present case, therefore, I calculate the amount of compensation in the case of death of Smt. Shyama Tewari as 250x12x20 which comes to Rs. 60,000/-. Rs. 3,000/-will also be paid as awarded by the Tribunal for love and affection, therefore, total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 63,000 /-. 7. So far as death of Shri A.P. Tewari is concerned, I find that learned Tribunal in Para 24 of the impugned Judgment calculated Rs. 1,80,000/-as compensation. I find that out of it at the most one-third amount would have been deducted for personal expenses including the expenses of the car, therefore, total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,20,000/-. Therefore, I enhance the amount of compensation from Rs. 1,04,000/-to Rs. 1,20,000/-in the case of death of Shri A.P. Tewari. 8. So far as compensation in respect of damage of property is concerned, the learned Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to controvert the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant about limit of Insurance Company up to Rs. 50,000/-. The learned Tribunal in Para 23 of the Judgment considered the submission of the Counsel for the Insurance Company about statutory liability of the Insurance Company is up to Rs. 6,000/-for damages to the property and held the liability of the Insurance Company up to Rs. 6,000/-for damages to the property. 50,000/-. The learned Tribunal in Para 23 of the Judgment considered the submission of the Counsel for the Insurance Company about statutory liability of the Insurance Company is up to Rs. 6,000/-for damages to the property and held the liability of the Insurance Company up to Rs. 6,000/-for damages to the property. The Insurance Company filed a reply to the claim petition before the Tribunal wherein no such plea was taken that their liability in respect of damages to property is up to Rs. 6,000/- only. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company before the Tribunal restricting their liability in respect of damages to property up to Rs. 6,000/-. So far as insurance policy dated 15.06.1987 is concerned, although it has not been exhibited by statement of any witness but it was filed by Counsel for Insurance Company before the Tribunal on 27.08.1989. Section II of the policy relates to liability to third parties. Clause (ii) of Sub-section 1 of Section II relates to damages to property caused by use of motor vehicle. In the insurance policy the limit of liability has been described in Section II (1)(ii) as Rs. 50,000 /-. In these circumstances, I modify the award of the Tribunal about liability of the Insurance Company from Rs. 6,000/-to Rs. 50,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 51,000/-as compensation in respect of damages to car. The Insurance Company will make the payment for damage to car up to Rs. 50,000 /-. 9. Consequently both the appeals are allowed. The amount of compensation of Rs. 45,000/-in the case of death of Smt. Shyama Tewari is enhanced to Rs. 63,000/-. The amount of compensation of Rs. 1,04,000/-in the case of death of Shri A.P. Tewari is enhanced to Rs. 1,20,000/-. In respect of damage to property it is directed that Insurer will be liable to indemnify the liability up to Rs. 50,000/-out of Rs. 51,000/-. The respondents have already paid Rs. 45,000/-, Rs. 1,04,000/-and Rs. 6,000/-respectively to the appellants. Therefore, the respondents are directed to make the payment of remaining amount i.e., Rs. 18,000/-, Rs. 16,000/-and Rs. 44,000/-respectively. The appellants will be entitled to recover balance amount of Rs. 1,000/-towards loss of property from vehicle owner. Two months time is allowed to the respondents to deposit the amount. The appellants will be entitled to get interest on enhanced amount of Rs. 18,000/-and Rs. 18,000/-, Rs. 16,000/-and Rs. 44,000/-respectively. The appellants will be entitled to recover balance amount of Rs. 1,000/-towards loss of property from vehicle owner. Two months time is allowed to the respondents to deposit the amount. The appellants will be entitled to get interest on enhanced amount of Rs. 18,000/-and Rs. 16,000/-only @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of deposit of the amount. The appellants will not be entitled to get interest on the remaining amount of Rs. 44,000/-in respect of damage to property. The entire amount of compensation including the damage to property and interest will be deposited in the name of the appellants in the Monthly Income Scheme of the Post Office for a period of 6 years with liberty to appellants to withdraw the monthly interest accrued thereon. No order as to costs.