Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 371 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sugna Devi

2021-02-12

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present appeals are being heard and decided by this common order as both the appeals arise out of the same accident and common judgment. 2. The present appeals have been filed against the judgment and award dated 13.08.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur in Motor Accident Claim case No. 235/2013 (NCB No. 457/2014) whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 9,92,536/- in favour of the claimants on account of death of Dinesh in the accident which occurred on 07.05.2013. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.05.2013 Dinesh while going to Hinganiya Sankhli on a motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-19-SB-0117 to drop his mother in law met with an accident. The motorcycle was dashed by truck No. RJ-19G-8954 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. In the accident, Dinesh sustained fatal injuries and died during his treatment. 4. In the circumstances, a claim petition was preferred. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record, hearing learned counsel for the parties allowed the claim petition of the claimants vide its judgment and award dated 13.08.2020 and awarded a sum of Rs. 9,92,536/- as compensation to the claimants-appellants. 5. Learned counsel for Insurance Company submits that the FIR of the accident was registered after a delay of 11 days. Learned Tribunal while recording the findings on issue No. 1 did not take into consideration the fact of lodging the FIR after a delay of 11 days. Thus, it creates doubt as to whether the insured vehicle in this case was involved in the accident or not. The second submission of learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the interest @ 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Anthony @ Anthony Swami vs. The Managing Director K.S.R.T.C., 2020 ACJ 1592 . 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that deceased Dinesh was admitted in the hospital at Ahmedabad for 6-7 days and entire family was busy in taking care of the injured Dinesh, therefore, FIR could not be lodged immediately after the accident. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that deceased Dinesh was admitted in the hospital at Ahmedabad for 6-7 days and entire family was busy in taking care of the injured Dinesh, therefore, FIR could not be lodged immediately after the accident. He further submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 is proved beyond doubt and it is established by cogent evidence that the insured vehicle in the present case was the only vehicle with which the accident had occurred and Dinesh had died. Thus, the finding arrived at by learned Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. The counsel further submits that in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya V/s. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., AIR 2020 SC 4284 , the interest @ 9% p.a. has correctly been awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, I find that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 does not suffer from any infirmity as the fact of the accident has been conclusively proved by evidence available on record. Therefore, lodging of FIR after a delay of 11 days will not absolve the insurance company from its liability to make the payment of compensation. Thus, in the opinion of this court, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1 does not require any interference by this court and the insurance company is liable to make payment of compensation. As far as interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it is noted that since the accident had occurred in the year 2013 and the award was passed on 13.08.2020, therefore, considering the submissions made and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya V/s State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anthony vs. the Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the respective parties, this court feels that the amount of compensation should be paid by the Insurance Company with interest @ 7.5% p.a. 8. As far as the appeal of the claimants-appellants is concerned, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the award has been assessed on a lower side and the same is required to be enhanced suitably. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that no amount towards loss of parental consortium has been awarded. As far as the appeal of the claimants-appellants is concerned, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the award has been assessed on a lower side and the same is required to be enhanced suitably. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that no amount towards loss of parental consortium has been awarded. Only an amount of Rs. 40,000/- has been awarded towards loss of consortium to both the parents, whereas as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. Vs. Somwati and Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 644 , mother and father both are required to be awarded Rs. 40,000/- each for loss of consortium, whereas in the present case, only an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards both the parents has been awarded. The counsel fairly submits that all other factors applied for computation of the award are in conformity with the provisions of law and the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 9. The counsel for the Insurance Company is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the claimants with respect to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. V/s Somwati & Ors. (supra). 10. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as record of the case. 11. So far as the appeal of the claimants are concerned, the appellants-claimants are entitled for the parental consortium to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the appeal of appellants-claimants is allowed to the extent that the respondent Insurance company will pay the amount of Rs. 40,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today. 12. The appeal of the respondent Insurance company is thus, partly allowed and the insurance company is directed to make payment of the compensation to the claimants with an interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition.