Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2142 (RAJ)

Kamla Bai v. Neelesh

2022-07-28

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment and award dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aklera, District Jhalawar in Claim Case No. 38/2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby an amount of Rs. 4,91,300/- was awarded as compensation on account of death of Lal Chand in an accident occurred on 31.01.2012. 2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants-appellants awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,91,300/- under various heads in favour of the claimants-appellants. 3. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the Insurance Company has been wrongly exonerated by the Tribunal by observing that at the time of accident, driver of the vehicle was not having any valid licence and permit to ply the vehicle. 4. Counsel further submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect is erroneous in view of the judgment of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2017 (4) T.A.C. 11 (S.C.) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the driver hold a licence to drive light motor vehicle, then he can also drive the transport vehicle of such class, while in the instant case, the weight of the vehicle is 1610 Kg. 5. Counsel submits that the necessity of permission is also not required in view of the judgment of Mukund Dewangan (supra). He further submits that under Section 66(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') permit is not required. Counsel also submits that without considering these aspects, the Tribunal has erroneously exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to make payment to the claimants-appellants. Counsel submits that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 45 years, but the Tribunal has committed an error while taking into consideration the multiplier of 13, while the multiplier of 14 should have been applied in the present case in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 6. Counsel further submits that under the conventional head also a very petty amount of Rs. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 6. Counsel further submits that under the conventional head also a very petty amount of Rs. 35,000/- has been awarded, while under the conventional head, the appellants-claimants are entitled to get a lump-sum amount of Rs. 70,000/- in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . He, therefore, prays for re-computation of the award in the present case in the light of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) and also in the light of the judgment of Mukund Dewangan (supra). 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the owner of the driver submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimants-appellants has correctly taken into consideration all the factors while calculating the award in the present case on the anvil of evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment and award dated 29.10.2013 does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, is not a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimants-appellants with respect to the re-computation of the award in the present case in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Mukund Dewangan (supra). 9. Counsel for the respondent submits that in the instant case, the Tribunal has wrongly given the 30% amount under the head of future prospects while it should be 25%, looking to the age of the deceased. 10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 29.10.2013 and perused the other available material. 11. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was having weight of 1610 Kg., and as per Section 66(i) of the Act of 1988 and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the respondent-Insurance Company was wrongly exonerated from its liability to make the payment of compensation. 12. In view of the submissions made above, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are modified and the Insurance Company is directed to make the payment of compensation to the claimants-appellants. 13. 12. In view of the submissions made above, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are modified and the Insurance Company is directed to make the payment of compensation to the claimants-appellants. 13. Admittedly, the deceased- Lal Chand was of the age of 45 years at the time of accident, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in applying the multiplier of 13 in the present case in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). The multiplier of 14 is required to be applied in the present case while calculating the award. The further amount to the extent of 30% under the head of future prospects is reduced to 25% in view of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra). Further, under the conventional heads also, the claimants-appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs. 35,000/- under the head of conventional heads. Thus, the award is re-computed as under:- Annual Income Rs.3000/- x 12 = 36,000/- Add 25 % towards future prospects Rs.36,000/-+ 9,000/- = 45,000/- Multiplier to be applied 14 Rs.45,000/-x 14 = 6,30,000/- Less 1/4th towards personal expenses Rs. 6,30,000/-- Rs. 1,57,500/- = Rs. 4,72,500/- Towards conventional head Rs.70,000/- Total compensation awardable Rs. 5,42,500/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 5,42,500/- - Rs.4,91,300/- Rs. 51,200/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 51,200/- 14. In view of the above, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 51,200/-. Insurance company is directed to pay additional amount of Rs. 51,200/- 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. 15. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of. 16. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.