Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2619 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Veermati

2022-10-17

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 13.01.2017 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as ’the Tribunal’) in Motor Claim Case No.248/2015 whereby an amount of Rs.14,61,000/- (including conventional heads) was awarded as compensation on account of death of Badan Singh @ Vadana in the accident occurred on 01.08.2012. 2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants-Respondents and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.14,61,000/- under various heads in favour of the claimants-respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company submits that the accident occurred on 01.08.2012 and the FIR was registered on the next day i.e. on 02.08.2012 against the unknown vehicle in which the number and type of the vehicle was not disclosed. Counsel submits that without any basis charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle. 4. Counsel submits that mere submission of charge-sheet is not enough to allow the claim petition filed by the claimants. Counsel submits that though the claimants cross-examined AW-2 Navalkishor who claimed himself as eye-witness of the accident but his conduct was so unnatural that he did not take any steps to take the injured in hospital to save his life. Counsel submits that even no steps have been taken by him to lodge FIR and he has not disclosed the number of motor cycle of the deceased. Counsel submits that even in the Mechanical Report of the offending vehicle, the signs and symptoms of accident were not mentioned but these facts were overlooked by the Tribunal while deciding issue No.l and the Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents. Counsel submits that the deceased was not holding any permanent salaried job even then the Tribunal has awarded future prospects to the tune of 50% in violation of the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company has placed reliance on the judgments of Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered in the case of Kokila Bai & Anr. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company has placed reliance on the judgments of Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered in the case of Kokila Bai & Anr. Vs. Abdul Bahav & Ors., reported in 1 (2005) ACC 458 (DB) and the High Court of Orissa delivered in the case of Mataji Bewa & Ors. Vs. Hemanta Kumar Jena & Anr., reported in 1994 ACJ 1303 .Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant insurance Company and submits that during the course of the investigation, statements of the eye-witness AW-2 Navalkishor was recorded and he disclosed the number of the offending vehicle to the police. Counsel submits that this witness was not related to the deceased or his family members, so there was no reason or occasion available before the Tribunal to discard the testimony of this witness. Counsel submits that the Mechanical Report of the motor cycle of the deceased was prepared by the police during the course of investigation and the same was also produced before the Tribunal vide Ex.10 which indicates that the motor cycle was damaged because of the said accident. Counsel opposed the submissions made by counsel for the appellant-insurance Company that the Mechanical Report of the offending vehicle does not indicate any signs or symptoms of the accident as the same has not been produced on the record of the Tribunal. Counsel submits that after thorough investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle and the Tribunal has not committed an error while deciding issue No.l in favour of the claimants-respondents. 7. Learned counsel, however is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant insurance Company that the deceased was not holding any permanent salaried job. 8. Heard and considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the impugned judgment and award as well as other material available on record. 9. This fact is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 01.08.2012 and the FIR was registered on 02.08.2012. 8. Heard and considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the impugned judgment and award as well as other material available on record. 9. This fact is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 01.08.2012 and the FIR was registered on 02.08.2012. This fact is also not in dispute that in the FIR, the number and type of the vehicle was not disclosed but during the course of investigation, statement of the eye-witness AW-2 was recorded and he has disclosed the number of the offending vehicle to the police and thereafter the motor cycle of the deceased was seized by the police on 09.08.2012 and its mechanical report (Ex.10) indicates the sings and symptoms of the accident. This fact is also not in dispute that after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent No.l for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Appreciating the evidence of the eye-witness AW-2, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that instant case was a case of rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.l who was responsible for causing accident. In the case of Kokila Bai, the Madhya Pradesh High Court was of the view that the evidence of the eye-witness was not trustworthy. The findings recorded by the Madhya Pradesh High Court looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case but in the instant case, the eye-witness AW-2 has categorically stated that he is not related with the deceased or his family members. 10. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anita Sharma & Ors., Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited and Anr., in Civil Appeal No.4010-11/2011 decided on 08.12.2020 that strict principles of proof in a criminal case will not be applicable in a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and that standard to be followed in motor accident claims is one of preponderance of probability rather than one of the proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the factum of accident has been proved by the claimants while producing cogent evidence which has rightly relied by the Tribunal and it has not committed an error in deciding issue No.l in favour of the claimants-respondents. 11. In the instant case, the factum of accident has been proved by the claimants while producing cogent evidence which has rightly relied by the Tribunal and it has not committed an error in deciding issue No.l in favour of the claimants-respondents. 11. I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company that the deceased was not holding any permanent salaried job, hence the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding the future prospects to the tune of 50%. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants-respondents are entitled to get 40% future prospects instead of 50%. 12. Thus, the award passed by the Tribunal is re-computed as under: Monthly income Rs. 6,000/- Annual Income Rs.6,000/- x 12 = 72,000/- Add 40 % towards future prospects Rs.72,000/- + 28,800/- = 1,00,800/- Multiplier to be applied 16 Rs.l,00,800/-x 16 = 16,12,800/- Less l/4th towards personal expenses Rs.16,12,800/- - Rs. 4,03,200/- = Rs. 12,09,600/- Total compensation awardable towards loss of income Rs. 12,09,600/- Excess amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income Rs. 12,96,000/- - Rs. 12,09,600/- Rs. 86,400/- Reduced amount of compensation Rs. 86,400/- 13. Thus, it is clear that excess amount of Rs. Rs. 86,400/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents, which is liable to be refunded to the appellant-insurance Company. 14. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and the Tribunal is directed to refund Rs. 86,400/- alongwith interest to the Insurance Company within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 15. Consequently the appeal is disposed of. 16. All pending application(s), if any also stand(s) disposed of.