Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2259 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Co. v. Mohit

2022-08-17

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') against the judgment and award dated 06.01.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Court Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 46/2013 (147/97), whereby an amount of Rs. 10,94,000/- was awarded as compensation on account of death of Kavita Kala in the accident which occurred on 18.10.1996. 2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants respondents awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,94,000/- under various heads in favour of the claimants respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that earlier the claim petition filed by the claimants respondents was allowed and the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- in their favour. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the claimants submitted SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1840/2001 before this Court and on 04.01.2013 the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal. 5. Counsel submits that after remand of the matter, the Tribunal has passed the amount of award on higher side without any basis. Counsel submits that the claimants respondents have failed to prove the income of the deceased. Counsel further submits that though the claimants respondents have examined the employer of the firm where the deceased was working but when AW-4 Shanti Lal (employer of the firm) was examined in the witness box, a detailed cross-examination was done in which he has admitted that no income tax was paid for the salaries given to the employees. He further submits that there was no mention about the appointment order in the record maintained by the firm. Hence, it cannot be believed that the deceased was working on the post of Assistant Manager (Computer) with the firm of AW-4 Shanti Lal. Counsel submits that all these material facts were not considered by the Tribunal while determining the income of the deceased. Counsel submits that the accident occurred in the year 1996 and looking to the qualification of the deceased it cannot be believed that she was receiving salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Counsel submits that all these material facts were not considered by the Tribunal while determining the income of the deceased. Counsel submits that the accident occurred in the year 1996 and looking to the qualification of the deceased it cannot be believed that she was receiving salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Counsel submits that though the claimants have submitted bill vouchers with regard to the salaries received by the deceased but except on the bill voucher Ex. 30 the signatures of the deceased are not there on other bill vouchers i.e. Ex. 31 to Ex. 35. Counsel submits that even under the conventional head exorbitant amount i.e. Rs. 1,25,000/- has been awarded to the claimants and 50% amount towards future prospects has been awarded to the claimants in contravention of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.: (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Counsel, therefore, prays that interference may be made in the impugned award and the same may be quashed and set aside by this Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents claimants opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimants respondents has correctly taken into consideration the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment dated 06.01.2014 does not call for any interference of this Court. 7. Counsel for the respondents claimants submits that the deceased was well qualified and she was holding the degree of M.A. in Philosophy and she was possessing Computer Diploma Certificate issued by the National Institute of Computer Education (Ex. 17). Counsel submits that the appointment order (Ex. 29) of the deceased was placed on the record and the bill vouchers were issued by the firm where the deceased was working on the post of Assistant Manager (Computer). Counsel submits that the bill vouchers Ex. 30 to Ex. 35 bear the signatures of the deceased which clearly indicates that she was receiving salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Counsel submits that even after the death of the deceased the firm paid the remaining salary of 18 days i.e. from 01.10.1996 to 18.10.1996 to the husband of the deceased i.e. claimant respondent No. 2. 30 to Ex. 35 bear the signatures of the deceased which clearly indicates that she was receiving salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Counsel submits that even after the death of the deceased the firm paid the remaining salary of 18 days i.e. from 01.10.1996 to 18.10.1996 to the husband of the deceased i.e. claimant respondent No. 2. Counsel submits that the Tribunal has not committed any error in granting a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- under conventional head to the claimants respondents and no error has been committed by the Tribunal while awarding 50% amount towards future prospects. Lastly, counsel submits that no interference is required by this Court. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 06.01.2014 passed by the Tribunal as well as the material available on the record. 9. This fact is not in dispute that earlier the claim petition filed by the claimants respondents was allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 19.07.2001 and compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- was granted. Since the claimants respondents were not satisfied with the said amount, hence, SB Civil Misc. Appeal 1840/2001 was submitted before this Court which was disposed of by this Court on 04.01.2013 and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh on issue No. 4 i.e. quantum of compensation. After remand of the matter, the Tribunal has considered each and every aspect including the documents submitted by the claimants respondents and after appreciating the evidence led by the both the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 10,94,000/-. 10. I find no force in the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant that the deceased was not qualified and the Tribunal has erroneously determined the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month. The documents available on the record clearly indicate that the deceased was highly qualified as she was holding the degree of Masters in Philosophy and apart from that she was holding Diploma in Computer Application issued by the National Institute of Computer Education. Her appointment order issued by the firm i.e. Bhilwara Drug Distributors clearly indicates that she was appointed on the post of Assistant Manager (Computer) and she was getting salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Her appointment order issued by the firm i.e. Bhilwara Drug Distributors clearly indicates that she was appointed on the post of Assistant Manager (Computer) and she was getting salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The bill vouchers submitted by the claimants i.e. Ex. 30 to Ex. 35 clearly indicate that salary of Rs. 5,000/- was paid to her on monthly basis and even after her death the balance salary of 18 days w.e.f. 01.10.1996 to 18.10.1996 was paid to husband of the deceased vide Ex. 37. So, the Tribunal has not committed any error in determining the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month on the basis of documentary evidence available on the record. 11. So far as the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant Insurance Company with regard to grant of excessive amount of compensation under the conventional head is concerned, it appears to be exorbitant. There is force and substance in the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has committed an error in granting future prospects to the tune of 50%. The aforesaid argument raised by the counsel for the appellant gets support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed a lump sum amount of Rs. 70,000/- under conventional head and categorically held that under these circumstances the self-employed persons are entitled to get future prospects to the tune of 40% onwards. Hence, the impugned award needs re-computation. 12. In view of the above submissions made hereinabove, the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company is partly allowed and thus, the award is re-computed as under:- Annual income (As awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.57,000/- per annum Deduction 1/3 towards personal expenses (As awarded by the Tribunal) Rs. 57,000 - Rs. 19,000 = Rs. 38,000 Multiplier to be applied 17 38,000 X 17 = Rs.6,46,000/- 40 % towards Future Prospects Rs.6,46,000/- + Rs. 2,58,400 = Rs. 9,04,400/- Towards Conventional Head Rs. 70,000 Rs. 70,000 Rs. 9,04,400 + Rs. 70,000 = Rs. 9,74,400 Excessive amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 10,94,000/- - Rs.9,74,400/- = Rs. 1,19,600/- 13. Since the appellant-Insurance Company has deposited the entire award amount with the Tribunal, the Tribunal is directed to refund the excessive amount to the appellant-Insurance Company within a period of one month. 70,000 Rs. 70,000 Rs. 9,04,400 + Rs. 70,000 = Rs. 9,74,400 Excessive amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 10,94,000/- - Rs.9,74,400/- = Rs. 1,19,600/- 13. Since the appellant-Insurance Company has deposited the entire award amount with the Tribunal, the Tribunal is directed to refund the excessive amount to the appellant-Insurance Company within a period of one month. Remaining amount would be paid to the claimants respondents in terms of the award. 14. With the above observations, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is partly allowed. 15. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 16. Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.