Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1932 (RAJ)

Resham W/o Abhay Singh v. Dhara Singh S/o Vishram

2022-07-04

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Both the misc. appeals arise out of a common judgment, hence same are being decided together. In Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2601/2015 2. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimants against the judgment and award dated 10.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur City (Rajasthan) (for short 'the Tribunal') in MAC case No.40/2011 whereby claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants was allowed and a sum of Rs.3,90,000/-was awarded as compensation on account of death of Mahesh in the accident which occurred on 12.02.2011. 3. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,90,000/-under various heads in favour of the claimants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 25 years. He further submits that though in the claim petition, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 23 years but in the post mortem report, his age was mentioned as 25 years and even the Tribunal has determined the age of the deceased as 25 years. But, without any basis, the multiplier of 15 has been applied. He further submits that as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier of 18 should have been applied in the present case. He further submits that no amount has been awarded towards future prospects in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . He therefore, prays that recomputation of the award in the present case may be done in the light of judgments referred above. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Insurance Company is not liable to make any payment of compensation as the deceased was travelling in a trolley and no separate premium was taken and the trolley was not insured. He further submits that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal while applying the multiplier of 15. He further submits that the driver of the vehicle was not having the license to ply the commercial vehicle. He further submits that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal while applying the multiplier of 15. He further submits that the driver of the vehicle was not having the license to ply the commercial vehicle. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to may any sort of compensation to the claimants-appellants. 6. Learned counsel, however, is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the appellant with respect to recomputation of the award in the present case in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra). 7. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 10.04.2015 as well as the other relevant documents available on record. 8. Admittedly, the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident, so, the Tribunal was not right in applying the multiplier of 15 in the present case. In view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 18 should have been applied in the present case, while calculating the award. 9. Further, the amount to the extent of 40% is required to be added in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, the award is recomputed as under:- Income of deceased as assessed by the Tribunal (after deducting personal expenses) Rs. 1750 x 12 = 21000/- Multiplier to the applied 18 = Rs. 3,78,000/- Add 40 % towards future prospects Rs.3,78,000/- + 1,51,200/-= 5,29,200/- Add towards conventional heads Rs.70,000/- Total compensation awardable Rs.5,99,000/- Compensation awarded by Tribunal (Including Rs.75,000/-towards conventional heads) Rs.3,90,000/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.5,99,000/--Rs. 3,90,000/- Rs. 2,09,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.2,09,000/- 10. In view of the above, the appellants would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. Rs.2,09,000/-. Insurance company is directed to pay additional amount of Rs. Rs.2,09,000/-within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall carry 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. 11. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms. In Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2549/2015 12. Heard. 13. Rs.2,09,000/-within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall carry 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. 11. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms. In Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2549/2015 12. Heard. 13. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in fastening liability on the Insurance Company as the trolley was not insured. Counsel further submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any license to ply the commercial vehicle. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Vs. OIC Ltd. Reported in 2014(2) ACTC SC 1195, NIC Vs. Kusum Roy reported in ACC 2006 SC 19 and OIC Vs. Angad Kol & Ors. Reported in 2009 DNJ SC 949. 14. Lastly, he argued that under these circumstances, the Insurance Company may be exonerated from its liability to make any payment of compensation. 15. Counsel for the claimants-respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimants has correctly taken into consideration all the relevant prevailing judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court. He further submits that it is incorrect on the part of the Insurance Company to say that the deceased was sitting in the trolley. He submits that as per the record, the deceased was standing on the right side of the road and the accident has been caused by the driver of the offending vehicle, so, the arguments raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company has no force. 16. He further submits that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in deciding issue No.4. 17. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment as well as other material available on record. 18. It is not in dispute that the deceased was standing on the right side of the road and the accident has been caused by the driver of the offending vehicle by plying the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 18. It is not in dispute that the deceased was standing on the right side of the road and the accident has been caused by the driver of the offending vehicle by plying the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It is incorrect on the part of the Insurance Company to say that the deceased was sitting in the trolley attached to the tractor. Even otherwise, it is a well settled proposition of law that the trolley is a part of tractor and no separate insurance is required. The judgments submitted by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance company are not applicable in the facts of this case. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal while deciding issue No.4. 19. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. 20. Stay application and all pending applications, if any stand disposed of.