Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1702 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Godadevi

2017-08-01

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Suratgarh ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 23,70,320/- to the claimants on account of death of one Vinod Kumar. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that though the issue regarding the liability of the Insurance Company is covered by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.: Civil Appeal No. 5826/2011, decided on 3.7.2017, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is contrary to the material available on record, inasmuch as, the age of the deceased in the application has been indicated at 36 years, from the driving licence of the deceased, which is available on record, his age comes to 38 years, the Tribunal by taking the age of the deceased at 32 years has applied multiplier of 16, which deserves to be rectified. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal was justified in taking the age of the deceased at 32 years on account of the postmortem report and the award to that extent does not call for any interference. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. In so far as the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company is concerned, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, the issue is covered by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) and further so far as the involvement of the Tractor and Trolley is concerned, the judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) has been followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sant Lal v. Rajesh & Ors. : Civil Appeal No. 8395-96/2017, wherein, it has been held that Tractor attached with Trolley is also a 'Light Motor Vehicle'. 6. In view thereof, to the extent of liability of the appellant-Insurance Company, no interference in the award impugned is called for. 7. : Civil Appeal No. 8395-96/2017, wherein, it has been held that Tractor attached with Trolley is also a 'Light Motor Vehicle'. 6. In view thereof, to the extent of liability of the appellant-Insurance Company, no interference in the award impugned is called for. 7. So far as the submissions regarding applicability of multiplier is concerned, the claimants indicated the age of the deceased at 36 years in the claim petition, apparently no material was produced to support the said age, however, in the driving licence of the deceased, which was available on record, the date of birth of the deceased has been indicated as 24.08.1970 and as the accident took place on 09.05.2009, the deceased in fact was aged 38 years. 8. In view thereof, the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the postmortem report, wherein the age of the deceased has been indicated as 32 years cannot be sustained. 9. Applying the multiplier as indicated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : (2009) 6 SCC 121 for age group 35 to 40 years i.e. 15, the claimants would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 21, 04,987.50 P. towards loss of income and after adding the amount of non-pecuniary loss as awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 22,29,987/-, which is rounded-off to Rs. 22,30,000/- and to that extent, the award deserves to be modified. 10. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is partly allowed. The award impugned is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 22,30,000/- as compensation instead of Rs. 23,70,320/- as awarded by the Tribunal along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.