Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2552 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Detu

2019-09-23

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. This misc. appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is therefore respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment and award dated 19.01.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in MAC Case No.415/2005 may kindly be quashed and set aside and it may kindly be held that the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation in this case. Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed." 2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court, are that an unfortunate accident happened on 23.03.2005 at Chittorgarh-Bhilwara while a tractor bearing registration No.MXN 2835 which was being driven by deceased Ramlal Gadri, was hit from behind by one Trolla Container bearing registration No.HR 38 J 5850 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner; as a result whereof, deceased Ramlal Gadri died on the spot. 3. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company Mr. L.D. Khatri makes a limited submission that the wages have been determined by the learned Tribunal as Rs.6,000/- per month which the deceased was said to be receiving from one Shankar Lal, the owner of the tractor in question, in lieu of being the tractor driver. 4. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further submits that Shankar Lal could neither have ownership over the tractor in question nor the claimants were in a position to show the valid driving license of deceased Ramlal Gadri. 5. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company also submits that at best, even if the deceased is taken to be a driver, then also he would entitle only for the minimum wages of skilled labour, which was Rs.2,106/- per month, at that time. 6. Per contra, counsel for respondents-claimants Mr. Vinay Jain vehemently opposed the submission on the count that not having the valid driving license cannot be considered at this stage to be detrimental to the computation of the wages of the deceased. 7. Counsel for respondents-claimants further submits that the evidence of Shankar Lal categorically established the issue of wages being Rs.6,000/- per month, and once such statement was on record, it was not open for the appellant-Insurance Company to dispute the monthly wages at this juncture. 8. 7. Counsel for respondents-claimants further submits that the evidence of Shankar Lal categorically established the issue of wages being Rs.6,000/- per month, and once such statement was on record, it was not open for the appellant-Insurance Company to dispute the monthly wages at this juncture. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the statement of Shankar Lal does not induce confidence regarding deceased Ramlal Gadri being a tractor driver, as the basic requirement of being a tractor driver i.e. a valid driving license could not be produced by the claimants or owner of the tractor. 9. This Court also takes note of the fact that since Shankar Lal could not produce any valid document so as to claim and substantiate his ownership over the tractor in question, and also, there is no direct proof of any transaction regarding the wages, except for the oral evidence, therefore, the same cannot be accepted. 10. This Court, thus, concludes that the computation of the compensation to be awarded to the claimants has to be done in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) AIR SC 5157, while treating the deceased a skilled labour with a minimum wage of Rs.2,106/- per month, and also the deduction would be 1/4th as he had four immediate dependants, including three children. 11. Learned counsel for both the parties were directed by this Court to provide a joint recalculation of the compensation, while treating the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.2,106/-. Upon such directions, learned counsel for both the parties have submitted the following recalculation of the compensation in accordance with principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), which reads as follows: “Age claimed - 27 years - Determined 27 years Income claimed :10000/- per month Determined (Skilled labour) -2106/- per month NLSA NLSA Monthly Income 2,106/- Deduction for Personal Exp.(1/4) 527/- Income after deduction 1,579/- Annual Income 18,954/- Future prospects (40%) 7,582/- Total including Future Prospects (TFP) 26,536/- Multiplier 17 TFP x Multiplier 4,51,112/- Other Heads 70,000/- Total compensation 5,21,112/- Already awarded 9,29,000/- 12. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the compensation awarded to the extent of Rs.9,29,000/- is reduced to Rs.5,21,112/-, which shall be payable alongwith the interest already awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition. All the pending applications stand disposed of.