Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 272 (RAJ)

Purshottam v. New India Assurance Co.

2015-01-30

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - Since all these appeals relate to one incident and arise out of the common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.9.1991 at about 8.00 AM on Panwad Mod near Deoli, an accident took place due to collision in between Maruti Van No. AP 10A 7505 and truck No. RJ 14G 1267, in which Saroj Devi and Venket Pareke died and Purshottam sustained injuries. 3. Thereafter claim petition no. 331/2001 was filed on account of death of Saroj Devi; claim petition no. 332/2001 was filed on account of death of Venket Pareke; and claim petition no. 333/2001 was filed claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by Purshottam, whereas claim petition no. 334/2001 was filed due to damage caused to Maruti Van in the said accident. Notices were issued; reply was filed; certain issues were framed and after hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid impugned judgment and award dated 11.9.2003, awarding Rs. 1.81,000/- as compensation in claim petition no. 331/2001, Rs. 2,65,000/- in claim petition no. 332/2001; Rs. 10,000/- in claim petition no. 333/2001; and dismissed the claim petition no. 334/2001. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, these four appeals have been filed: three by the Insurance Co. challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in claim petition no. 331/2001, 332/2001 and 333/2001; and one by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded in claim petition no. 331/2001. 5. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the claimants has contended that the learned Tribunal has totally discarded the earnings of the deceased from her business and for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation, has assessed her contribution by way of household work only at Rs. 1500/- per month. Out of this amount, merely a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month has been assessed as her contribution towards her family. It was also proved by un-rebutted evidence that Smt. Saroj Devi besides giving her contributions in household affairs was also the proprietor of M/s. Maheshwari Plastics and Industries, Shivaji Nagar, Nanded. She was the income tax payer for the last many years. There was every likelihood of rise in her income. It was also proved by un-rebutted evidence that Smt. Saroj Devi besides giving her contributions in household affairs was also the proprietor of M/s. Maheshwari Plastics and Industries, Shivaji Nagar, Nanded. She was the income tax payer for the last many years. There was every likelihood of rise in her income. He has further contended that the Tribunal has awarded a very low multiplier of 13. Looking to the age of the deceased and that of claimants appellants, a much higher multiplier should have been applied. He has further contended that so far as deceased is concerned, it was the case of composite negligence for her. It is the settled law that in case of composite negligence, no bifurcation of the liability to pay compensation should be done amongst the tortfeasors and they should have been made liable to pay the entire amount of compensation jointly and severally. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the National Insurance Co. have contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the evidence emerging on record. He has further contended that the Tribunal erred to hold that the driver of the Maruti Van had contributed in equal measure to the occasioning of the accident. Rather, the true and correct fact of the matter was that the accident in question had occurred on account of the sole negligence of the driver of Truck. He has further contended that a perusal of the Insurance Cover Note and Policy of Insurance reveals that the Van-in-question was insured as Private Car and the terms and conditions of the policy specifically barred the Van to be plight on hire and reward as a Taxi. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal should be quashed and set aside. 7. The learned counsel for the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and counsel for the owner of the Maruti Van have also defended the impugned judgment and award and stated the same to be just and proper. They have further contended that the Tribunal on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence emerging on record, decided all the issues and rightly passed the impugned judgment and award, hence no interference is required by this court. 8. They have further contended that the Tribunal on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence emerging on record, decided all the issues and rightly passed the impugned judgment and award, hence no interference is required by this court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award are found to be just and proper. I do not find any ground to take a different view, than that of the view taken by the learned Tribunal. Hence, all the aforesaid appeals filed by the claimants as well as by the Insurance Co., being without any substance, are hereby dismissed.Stay application(s) also stand dismissed accordingly.Appeal of claimants as well as by the insurer dismissed. *******