Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 584 (RAJ)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shanta Devi

2016-04-27

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2016
Hon'ble BARDHAR, J.— Instant misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Insurance Company against the award dated 5.1.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 12,56,000/- to the claimant respondents. 2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the respondent No.1 to 6 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur stating therein that on 29.3.2006 at 4.30 PM, the driver of Truck No. GJ 18U 7001 driving rash and negligently hit the motorcycle driven by Shankar Lal Patel. In the said accident, Shankar Lal died due to the injuries sustained by him. The claimant No. 1 is the wife, claimants No. 2 to 4 are sons and daughter and claimants No. 5 & 6 are parents of the deceased. As per claim petition, the deceased was 30 years old and was earning Rs. 11,500/- per month, therefore, it was prayed that a sum of Rs. 71,50,000/- may be awarded in favour of the claimants. 3. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 9000/- awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 12,56,000/- to the claimants and the Insurance Company, owner end driver were held liable jointly and severally. 4. In this appeal, the Insurance Company is challenging the award mainly on the ground of quantum. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Tribunal has awarded amount under various heads beyond legal permissibility and has awarded exorbitant amounts under the various heads beyond substantiation of the documents on record, therefore, findings of Tribunal are not based on evidence on record and are legally not sustainable, therefore, the impugned award dated 5.1.2008 is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that an application under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act was moved on behalf of Insurance Company to seek permission to have all defences available to owner etc as the respondent non-applicants did not participate effectively during the claim proceedings and by order dated 10.10.2007, same was taken on record, therefore, insurance company has right to challenge the award with respect to quantum also. 5. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent claimants submits that the income of the deceased was duly proved by the claimants by way of Ex. 9, 11 & 12 Exhibit 12 is Form 16A for the assessment year 2004-05, Ex. 11 is Form 16A for the assessment year 2005-06 and Ex. 9 is form 16A for the assessment year 2006-07 in which income of the deceased has been shown as Rs. 1,36,627/- and therefore, the finding of Tribunal for award of compensation is based on evidence and material available on record. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the record and perused the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned MACT, Udaipur. 7. The appellant Insurance Company is challenging the impugned award passed by the Tribunal mainly on the ground of quantum that Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amount under various heads. 8. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased Shankar Lal was 30 years which is evident from the postmortem report Ex. 4 and therefore, in the opinion of this court, the multiplier of 17 was rightly applied by the Tribunal according to second schedule of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act and same is also in consonance with the view expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC). 9. As far as the income of the deceased in concerned, documents Ex. 9, 10, 11, 12 have been filed by the claimants and said documents reveal that deceased was an income tax payer and the income tax returns produced in evidence pertains to assessment years 2004-05 (Ex. 12) and 2005-06 (Ex. 11). Undisputedly, the accident took place on 29.3.2006 and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 9000/-. More so, u/Sec. 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company was permitted to have all the defences before the Tribunal but in rebuttal no evidence was produced by the owner, driver or the insurance company and therefore, the challenge made to the award on the ground of quantum is un-sustainable. 10. 9000/-. More so, u/Sec. 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company was permitted to have all the defences before the Tribunal but in rebuttal no evidence was produced by the owner, driver or the insurance company and therefore, the challenge made to the award on the ground of quantum is un-sustainable. 10. In view of aforesaid discussion, the finding and conclusion recorded by the learned Tribunal for awarding compensation while applying the multiplier of 17 does not call for any interference as the same is based on appreciation of evidence on record. This Court is of the opinion that the present appeal filed by the Insurance Company only regarding the quantum of compensation is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of above, the appeal being without any merit is hereby rejected.