Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2414 (RAJ)

Maniram v. Jenudeen

2019-09-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 2. These two appeals arise but of judgment-cum-award dated 05.08.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar (Camp Suratgarh) in Claim Case No. 1/2003 whereby, the claim application filed by Maniram and others being the legal representatives of Ramswaroop under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, was accepted and they were awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,75,136/- as compensation/damages towards death of Ramswaroop in a road accident. Shri Jenuddin and the National Indian Insurance Company Ltd. were held responsible jointly and severely to satisfy the award. 3. Whilst the claimants have approached this Court through Appeal No. 1083/2007 seeking enhancement in the quantum of the amount awarded to them by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed Appeal No. 768/2007 so as to assail the impugned award to the extent, it was held responsible for satisfying the award the claim. 4. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned award. 5. Considering the appeal filed by the claimants, I find that the learned Tribunal, appreciated the material available on the record in an absolutely just and apropos manner while quantifying the claim filed by the claimants. There were contradictory stands regarding the income of Ramswaroop who was working as a driver of the Jeep No. RJ-13-G-3241 which collided with a tractor No. RJ-3-1R-8072. Due to the impact of the collision, Ram Swaroop expired. While the claimants stated that Ramswaroop used to earn a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month, the Insurance Company pleaded that his salary was only Rs. 1,000/- per month. Jenuddin, the owner certified that the salary of Ramswaroop was Rs. 2,200/- per month. The Tribunal rationalised these contradictions and held the income of Ramswaroop to be Rs. 2,000/- per month: His age was 30 years and thus, multiplier of 17 was applied. 1/3rd of the amount was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and Ultimately, the Tribunal, by adverting to structured formula under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, awarded the amount aforesaid to the claimants by way of compensation. 6. 2,000/- per month: His age was 30 years and thus, multiplier of 17 was applied. 1/3rd of the amount was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and Ultimately, the Tribunal, by adverting to structured formula under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, awarded the amount aforesaid to the claimants by way of compensation. 6. Considered in light of the material available on record, the assessment of the quantum of compensation awardable to the claimants made by the Tribunal is absolutely justified and cannot be said to be on the lower side. No enhancement is called for in the same. Thus, the appeal No. 1083/2007 filed by the claimants has no merit whatsoever. 7. The Insurance Company has filed the appeal seeking exoneration on the two grounds: (i) that the deceased was not having a valid licence to drive a light commercial vehicle, and (ii) that the deceased himself was driving the jeep in a rash and negligent manner and thus, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to satisfy the award. 8. In this regard, the law is well settled. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 9694/2013, decided on 24.11.2017, had categorically held that claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act are to be decided by the structured formula and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The controversy regarding the licence raised by the appellant Insurance Company is no longer res-integra in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 . Thus the appeal No. 768/2007 filed by the Insurance Company also lacks merit. 9. In wake of the discussion made herein above, both the appeals are dismissed as being devoid of force. 10. A copy of this order be placed, in each file. Record be returned to the learned tribunal forthwith.