Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 213 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Anisa

2023-01-18

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2023
ORDER 1. Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and award dated 30.01.2018, hence they are being decided by this common order. 2. Brief facts of the appeals are that on dated 07.04.2014 the deceased Sakruddin @ Shakildudin was going from his house towards Mahwa Kheda to attend a marriage on motorcycle No.RJ-11-SD-7506. At about 7:00 PM, when the motor cycle reached near Lane Ka Pura ahead Purani Chawani, the said motor cycle was hit by Maruti Van No.RJ-11UA-0941. Resultantly, Sakruddin @ Shakildudin sustained injuries. He died on account of said injuries. FIR was lodged at P.S. Sadar Dholpur. Appellants Anisha & Ors. filed a claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the M.V. Act. The learned tribunal after hearing both the parties, awarded Rs.12,04,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 7% per annum in favour of the claimants. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2030/2018:- 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that while passing the award dated 30.01.2018, learned tribunal miserably failed to appreciate the material available on record because alleged accident took place on 07.04.2014, whereas the present FIR was lodged on next day by the brother of the deceased against unknown vehicle. During investigation, the Maruti Van was falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Puttu @ Pratap as the eye witness. The said witness was examined in the criminal trial in which he had not supported the prosecution case and denied that any accident took place before him. So, trial court acquitted the respondent No.6 for the offence under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that the Insurance Company had filed an application before the learned tribunal for giving time for producing the statement of Puttu @ Pratap and copy of the judgment of the trial court regarding acquittal but learned tribunal dismissed the application filed by the Insurance Company. So, order of the learned tribunal be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company and submitted that learned tribunal has rightly dismissed the application filed by the Insurance Company because after giving so many opportunities, Insurance Company did not produce the evidence. So, order of the learned tribunal be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company and submitted that learned tribunal has rightly dismissed the application filed by the Insurance Company because after giving so many opportunities, Insurance Company did not produce the evidence. Learned counsel for the claimants also submitted that detailed enquiry is not necessary in the claim petition and also submitted that the claimants by way of evidence clearly proved that deceased died due to accident. So, appeal filed by the Insurance Company be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for the claimants. 6. It is an admitted position that during the trial, Insurance Company had not submitted the statement of Puttu @ Pratap and judgment of the criminal court and after giving so many opportunities, the Insurance Company did not adduce the evidence, so, trial court closed their evidence. The claimants by way of evidence clearly proved that deceased died due to accident and charge-sheet was filed against the respondent No.6. So, in my considered opinion, the tribunal has not committed any error in allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants. Thus, present appeal filed by the Insurance Company being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1983/2018:- 7. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that claimants in their claim petition clearly pleaded and stated that deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by running a readymade garment shop but learned tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that at that time as per minimum wages Act, one day wages were Rs.189/-. So, compensation be calculated as per the minimum wages. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that learned tribunal wrongly awarded lumpsum amount of Rs.40,000/- towards the loss of consortium. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that as per the judgment of the Apex Court consortium should be Rs.40,000/- per claimant. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that learned tribunal has granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is also on the lower side. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that it should be Rs.20,000/- in each head. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that learned tribunal has granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is also on the lower side. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that it should be Rs.20,000/- in each head. So, compensation granted by the learned tribunal be modified. 8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the tribunal rightly assessed the income as well as the amount under other heads. So, appeal filed by the claimants be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment & award and the material available on record. 10. It is an admitted position that the claimants had not submitted any evidence that income of the deceased was Rs. 12,000/- per month at the time of accident but in my considered opinion, the tribunal wrongly calculated the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. In the absence of any evidence, the tribunal should have calculated the income of the deceased as per Minimum Wages Act i.e. Rs.189/- per day. So, income of the deceased is calculated as (189 x 30 = 5670/-) 5670 x 12 =68,040/- per annum. Applying multiplier of 18, dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.68040 x 18 = 12,24,420/-. Taking into consideration, the number of dependents, 1/4 of the income should have been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the amount is calculated as Rs.12,24,720 x 1/4 =9,18,540/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive an addition to 40% of the said amount as future prospects (9,18,540 x 40%=3,67,416) 9,18,540 + 3,67,416 = 12,85,956/-. The claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of the consortium instead of Rs.40,000/-. The claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate instead of Rs.15,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards funeral expenses instead of Rs.15,000/- as awarded by the tribunal. Thus, claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.12,85,956/- + 1,00,000/- + 20,000/- +20,000/- = 14,25,956/- instead of Rs.12,04,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant United India Insurance Company Limited is dismissed. 12. Appeal filed by the claimants Anisha & Ors. is partly allowed. Thus, claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.12,85,956/- + 1,00,000/- + 20,000/- +20,000/- = 14,25,956/- instead of Rs.12,04,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant United India Insurance Company Limited is dismissed. 12. Appeal filed by the claimants Anisha & Ors. is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 30.01.2018 is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to get Rs.14,25,956/- by way of compensation instead of Rs.12,04,000/- as awarded by the tribunal. Other terms and conditions of the award shall remain unchanged.