Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 63 (RAJ)

Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. v. Premwati

2015-01-08

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 15.2.2010 passed by learned Judge, MACT, Alwar in claim case no. 221/2004 whereby the claim petition filed by the respondent no.1 to 5 has been allowed and an award of Rs. 10,53,000/- has been passed in their favour. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Ramesh Chand was going on motor-cycle No. DL-65R-8074 which was being driven by Heera Singh and the driver of the motor-cycle stopped the vehicle on the request of deceased for passing urine and after passing the urine on the road side when the deceased Ramesh Chand coming towards motorcycle standing on the road, suddenly one Qualis bearing No.DL- 4C-R-2764 came from Basant Vihar side, it was being driven by Rudra Pal Singh rashly and negligently and hit him. Due to that, Shri Ramesh Chand Sustained serious injuries and the car driver rain away. The injured was taken to Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi through Ambulance of police department and he died at about 5.00 PM on 5.3.2004 during the course of treatment. FIR bearing No. 73/2004 of the said incident was lodged against the driver of Qualis. Thereafter, claim petition was filed by the claimants. Notices were issued of the claim petition, reply was filed and five issues were framed. After hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal vide its impugned judgment and award dated 15.2.2010 passed the aforesaid award. Against the said award, this appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. 3. Mr. Virendra Agrawal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the impugned award dated 15.2.2010 is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the facts of the case. He has further contended that while deciding issue no. 2, the learned Tribunal has assessed income on higher side, and also has not considered the evidence submitted by all the parties. He has further submitted that earlier matter was remanded on 21.2.2008 and Rs. 43,000/- was enhanced. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sriram Yadav, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-claimants has contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award and same does not require any interference by this court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award dated 15.2.2010. 43,000/- was enhanced. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sriram Yadav, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-claimants has contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award and same does not require any interference by this court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award dated 15.2.2010. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal, which read as under: " izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls Dyse ;kfpdk 19-8-04 dks bl vf/kdj.k esa tfj;s vf/koDrk is'k dhA ftlds iSjk uEcj 6 esa e'rd dh vk; 10]000@& :0 ekfyd gksuk vafdr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls tks lk{; is'k dh xbZ gSA mlesa lcls egRoiw.kZ xokg e'rd jes'k pUn dh iRuh izseorh gSA bl xokg us vf/kdj.k esa nh xbZ lk{; esa ;g ckr Li"V :i ls dgk gS fd mlds ifr yxHkx 10]000@& :0 ekfld dek fy;k djrs FksA blh izdkj e'rd ds iq= ftrsUnz us Hkh vius izfrijh{k.k esa ;g dgk gS fd mlds firk vius O;olk; ls djhc 10]000@& :0 dek fy;k djrs FksA bl izdkj e'rd dh iRuh izseorh vkSj iq= ftrsUnz dh lk{; ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd oDr nq?kZVuk e'rd jes'k pUn dh vk; 10]000@& ekfld FkhA e'rd ds }kjk viuh iRuh vkSj iq= ds uke ls 3]800@& :0 ekfld dh vko'fr tek djok, tkus ek= ls ;g fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrk gS fd e'rd dh vk; 20]000@& :0 ekfld FkhA xokg ,0M0%&6 lat; us vius lk{; esa crk;k gS fd og e'rd jes'k pUnz dh nqdku ij ukSdj jgrk Fkk vkSj jes'k pUn mls 2]000@& :0 osru nsrs FksA tcfd izkFkhZx.k ds }kjk is'k dh xbZ Dyse ;kfpdk esa bl ckr dk mYys[k ugha gS fd e'rd 2]000@& :0 ekfld osru nsrk FkkA e'rd dh iRuh izseyrk dh lk{; esa ;g rF; vk;k fd mlds ifr dh nqdku ij lat; uke dk ukSdj jgrk Fkk vkSj iq= ftrsUnz dh lk{; esa ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha vkbZ gSA bl izdkj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk bl ekeys dks fjek.M fd, tkus ij xokg ,0M0 6 lat; dks e'rd dh nqdku ij dke djus ds ckcr 2]000@& :0 ekfld osru izkIr djuk crk;k gSA og cukoVh vkSj vfo'oluh; gSA izkFkhZx.k ds }kjk is'k fd, x, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohd. Nasir & Ors. Ltd. vs. Mohd. Nasir & Ors. 2009 ACJ 2742 (SC) esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 168 (1) - Just Compensation-Act is a beneficent legistation-Whether compensation in excess of the amount claimed can be paid-Held : Yes, it is the duly of the Tribunal to arrive at just compensation. blh izdkj ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. vs. M. Ramadevi & Ors. 2008(3) RLW 2189 (SC) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 and 168 - Enhancement of compensation - Compensation amount awarded more than claimed - Held - There is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. bu nksuksa fof/kd n'"Vkarksa esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g fl)kur izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd vf/kdj.k ds mij ,slk dksbZ fucU/ku ugha gS fd og nkos dh jkf'k ls vf/kd dh {kfriwfrZ jkf'k iznku ugha dj ldrk gksA ge ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa ls ge iwjh rjg ls lgefr izdV djrs gSa fd vf/kdj.k nkos ls vf/kdkj jkf'k iznku djus esa l{ke gS] ijUrq izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{;] xokg izseorh ,oa ftrsUnz ds }kjk nh xbZ lk{; esa ;g ckr vkbZ fd oDr nq?kZVuk e'rd jes'k 10]000@& :0 ekfld dek fy;k djrk FkkA e'rd dh iRuh izseorh us cPpksa dh i<+kbZ&fy[kkbZ] jgu&lgu [kku&iku ,oa vU; [kpZ Hkh crk, gSaA bl izdkj e'rd ?kj djhc 3]500@& :0 [kpZ djrk FkkA bl izdkj e'rd djhc 3]500@& :0 [kpZ djrk FkkA bl izdkj i=koyh ij miyC/;k vfHkys[kksa] lk{khx.kksa ds lk{; rFkk izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, e'rd jes'k pUn oekZ dh vk;q 7]500@& :0 ekfld fuf'pr dh tkrh gSA izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls nkSjkus cgl jSQj dh xbZ Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us e'rd ij vkfJrx.kksa dh la[;k 6 gksus ij e'rd dh vk; esa 1@3 ds LFkku ij 1@4 de djus rFkk e'rd dh vk;q 35&40 lky ds e/; gksus ij 45 ds xq.kd dk mi;ksx fd, tkus dk fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gSA bl fof/kd n'"VkUr esa " Just compensation ... "Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstancers of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. "Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstancers of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse of course of profit." ekStwnk izdj.k esa e'rd jes'k dh vk; ij mldh iRuh] rhu cPps vkSj ekrk bl izdkj dqy 5 lnL; e'rd ij vkfJr FksA blfy, e'rd dh vk; esa ls 1@3 ds LFkku ij 1@4 Hkkx dh dVkSrh fd;k tkuk eSa mfpr le>rk gwaA izkFkhZx.k dh lk{; esa ;g rF; vk;k gS fd oDr nq?kZVuk muds ifjtu jes'k dh vk;q 36 lky FkhA ijUrq vk; ckcr dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha dh xbZ gSA jes'k pUn dh ih0,e0vkj0 esa mldh vk;q 38 lky vafdr dh xbZ gSA blfy, jes'k pUn dh vk;q 38 lky fuf'pr dh tkrh gSA izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa {kfriwfrZ dk fu/kkZj.k fuEukuqlkj fd;k tkrk gS%& 1 e'rd dh okf"kZd vk; 90]000@& :0 2 Lo;a ij 1@4 frgkbZ [kpZ djus ij 1/4 x 90,000 = 22,500/- 3 vk; ij ekfld fuHkZjrk 90,000 - 22,500 = 67,500 4 vk; dh dqy gkfu 67,500 x 15 = 10,12,500/- 5 nkg laLdkj ij [kpZ 5,000/- 6 dUlksfVZ;e jkf'k 35,000/- 7 yk'k dks ykus vkfn dk [kpkZ 1,000/- 8 vk; dh dqy gkfu 10,53,500/ - :0 bl izdkj izkFkhZx.k dks dqy {kfriwfrZ jkf'k 10]53]500@& :0 fnyk;s tkuk eSa] mfpr le>rk gwaA " 6. Accordingly, in view of above, I do not think it just and proper to interfere with the impugned award dated 15.2.2010. Hence, this appeal is 30 dismissed and the impugned award dated 15.2.2010 is affirmed.Appeal Dismissed. *******