Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1196 (RAJ)

Prem Bai Bairwa v. Smeer Alias Sameeruddeen

2023-05-29

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants (for short 'the claimants') against the judgment and award dated 17.12.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in M.A.C. No.1005/2013, whereby an amount of Rs.5,38,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition was awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants. 2. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal wrongly decided the issue No.4 in favour of the Insurance Company and wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that it is an admitted position that driver was having a license to drive light motor vehicle at the time of accident. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2017 ACJ 2011 a person who possess license to drive light motor vehicle can drive the light transport vehicle having an unladen weight upto 7500Kg. So, finding of the Tribunal regarding issue No.4 be set aside and Insurance Company be made liable to pay the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that deceased was doing masonry work and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. So, income of the deceased be assessed as Rs.9,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that it is an admitted position that deceased was 40 years of age. So, multiplier of 15 should be applied instead of 14. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- only each to the claimant Nos.2 to 5 and claimant No.6-Girdhari Lal Bairwa for love and affection, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- to each claimants. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, whereas it should be 25%. So, the judgment and award of the Tribunal be modified. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that it is an admitted position that driver did not possess license to drive the transport vehicle. He further submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court has referred the judgment of Mukund Dewangan (supra) to larger Bench. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that it is an admitted position that driver did not possess license to drive the transport vehicle. He further submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court has referred the judgment of Mukund Dewangan (supra) to larger Bench. So, the Tribunal rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay the compensation. He further submitted that there was no cogent evidence that deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. So, appeal be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.841/2018 decided on 08.03.2022. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. It is an admitted position that driver of the alleged vehicle had license to drive the light motor vehicle. As per the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) a person who possesses driving license to drive the light motor vehicle, can drive light transport vehicle, the unladen weight of which is not more than 7500 kg. In the present case, driver of the alleged vehicle possessed license to drive the light motor vehicle. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company for paying the compensation. 7. It is an admitted position that claimants had not adduced any cogent evidence that deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal on the basis of minimum wages rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.1 as a loss of consortium and Rs.20,000/- each to claimant Nos.2 to 5 and claimant No.6-Girdhari Lal Bairwa for love and affection. So, in my considered opinion, each claimant Nos.2 to 5 and claimant No.6-Girdhari Lal Bairwa are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- towards the love and affection. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.20,000/- for funeral expenses which seems to be on higher side. So, in my considered opinion, it should be Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 40 years. So, in my considered opinion, multiplier of 15 be applied instead of 14. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.20,000/- for funeral expenses which seems to be on higher side. So, in my considered opinion, it should be Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 40 years. So, in my considered opinion, multiplier of 15 be applied instead of 14. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, whereas it should be 25%. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under:- Monthly Income Rs.3000/- 1/4 income to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased 3,000 X 1/4 = 750/-(3000 - 750 = Rs.2250/-) Annual Income 2250 X 12 = Rs.27,000/- Since the deceased was 40 years of age, multiplier of 15 should be applied 27,000 X 15 = Rs.4,05,000/- Add Future Prospects 4,05,000 X 25% = Rs.1,01,250/- Loss of Consortium to claimant No.1, as awarded by the Tribunal Rs.40,000/- Love and Affection to the claimant Nos.2 to 5 and claimant No.6-Girdhari Lal Bairwa (40,000 X 5) Rs.2,00,000/- Funeral expenses, as awarded by the Tribunal Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.7,61,250/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.5,38,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.7,61,250/- - Rs.5,38,000/- = Rs.2,23,250/- 8. In view of the above, the amount of compensation receivable by the claimants and claimant No.6-Girdhari Lal Bairwa comes to Rs.7,61,250/- instead of Rs.5,38,000/-. Thus, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.2,23,250/-(Rs.7,61,250/- Rs.5,38,000/-) with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On deposition of the said amount, the claimants and claimant No.6-Girdhari Lal Bairwa shall be entitled to withdrawn the same. The enhanced amount shall carry 7.5% interest from the date of filing the claim petition till actual payment is made. 9. Other terms and conditions of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged. 10. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed as indicated above. Impugned judgment is modified accordingly. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.