Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1362 (RAJ)

Janki Bai v. Mukesh

2023-07-12

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellantsclaimants (for short 'the claimants) against the judgment and award dtd. 20/3/2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims 2. Tribunal, Bundi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.34/2012, CIS No.346/2014, whereby an amount of Rs.3, 61, 000.00 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition was awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants and held respondent Nos.1 and 2 liable to pay compensation only, whereas the Insurance Company has been exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal had committed error in assessing income of the deceased as Rs.7, 000.00 per month. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that claimants had exhibited the Income Tax Returns as Ex.17 to Ex.19 before the Tribunal for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. As per the Income Tax Returns, income of the deceased be calculated as Rs.2, 13, 584.00. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal had committed error in deducting 1/2 amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, whereas it should be 1/4th looking to the number of dependents. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal wrongly decided the issue No.4 and exonerated the Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that deceased was a 3rd party. As per the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Tribunal should direct the Insurance Company to pay the award amount and thereafter, the Insurance Company could recover the award amount from owner and driver of the alleged vehicle. So, award of the Tribunal be modified. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) K. Ramya & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2022 (2) CCR 855 (SC); (2) Mukesh Sogani & Ors. Vs. Bhoop Singh & Anr. reported in 2022 (2) RAR 763; (3) Shamanna & Anr. Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2018 (2) RAR 255; (4) Pappu & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. reported in 2018 (1) RAR 63 (SC); (5) HDFC ERGO General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Udairam @ Udaram & Anr. reported in 2018 (2) RAR 763 and (6) New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sardara Bibi & Ors. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2018 (2) RAR 255; (4) Pappu & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. reported in 2018 (1) RAR 63 (SC); (5) HDFC ERGO General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Udairam @ Udaram & Anr. reported in 2018 (2) RAR 763 and (6) New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sardara Bibi & Ors. reported in 2018 (2) RAR 740. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the issue No.3 clearly mentioned that as per the Income Tax Returns, income of the deceased cannot be assessed because returns did not show that income of the deceased was from salary or interest or anything else. So, the Tribunal rightly calculated the income of the deceased as Rs.7, 000.00 per month. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the Tribunal while deciding the dependency of the deceased clearly mentioned that claimant Nos.2 to 5 were major and not dependent upon the deceased. Only claimant No.1 who is wife of the deceased is dependent upon deceased. So, the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/2 amount of the deceased income as a personal expenses. So, the appeal be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors. Vs. Siddharth Kumar & Ors. in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3561/2018 decided on 5/7/2023; (2) Smt. Sushila & Ors. VS. Kamal Saini & Anr. reported in 2015 (2) RAR 727; (3) Smt. Sushila & Ors. Vs. Kamal Saini & Anr. in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1236/2010 decided on 25/2/2014; (4) State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Ors. in Appeal (Civil) No.5523/2003 decided on 5/8/2003 and (5) Rani Gupta & Ors. Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2241/2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.20207/2007 decided on 8/4/2009. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 10. While deciding the issue No.3 the Tribunal clearly mentioned that as per the Income Tax Returns, income of the deceased cannot be assessed because returns did not show that it is whether from salary or interest or any other source. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.7, 000.00 per month. 10. While deciding the issue No.3 the Tribunal clearly mentioned that as per the Income Tax Returns, income of the deceased cannot be assessed because returns did not show that it is whether from salary or interest or any other source. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.7, 000.00 per month. Claimant Nos.2 to 5 were major and not dependent upon the deceased. Only claimant No.1 who is wife of the deceased is dependent upon deceased. So, the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/2 amount of the deceased's income as a personal expenses but the Tribunal wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company. As per the pronouncement of the Apex Court. 11. The Tribunal should order the Insurance Company to pay the award amount and same be recovered from owner and driver of the alleged vehicle. So, appeal filed by the claimants deserves to be partly allowed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed and finding of the Tribunal qua issue No.4 exonerating the Insurance Company is set aside. 13. Insurance Company is directed to pay compensation as awarded by the Tribunal and then to recover the same from owner and driver of the offending vehicle.