Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 229 (RAJ)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Wali Bai

2023-01-19

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2023
ORDER 1. Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and award dated 01.03.2008, hence they are being decided by this common order. 2. Brief facts of the appeals are that on 20.04.2006 at about 2:30 PM deceased Kumar Sahab was coming from Rehrai to Kachpura by Motor Cycle bearing No.RJ-11-M-0428. When he reached near Village Jorgarhi, a Mini Bus bearing No.RJ-14-P-8513 came rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle due to which Kumar Sahab received injuries and he died on way to Hospital. FIR was lodged at P.S. Sarmathura, District Dholpur. After that, claimants filed a claim petition. The learned tribunal after hearing both the parties, awarded Rs.2,82,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3293/2008:- 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that while passing the award dated 01.03.2008, learned tribunal miserably failed to appreciate the material available on record because mini bus driver did not have a valid and effective driving license as he had two driving licenses in his favour which were issue to him by Licensing Authority: one from Dholpur and another from Madhyapradesh. Both licenses were not valid to drive a Mini Bus, which is Commercial Vehicle. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that as per the circular of transport department a valid and effective license is necessary to drive the Mini Bus but the learned tribunal had ignored this fact and decided the claim in favour of the claimants. So, appeal be allowed and claim petition filed by the claimants be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company and submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid and effective license which was issued to him to drive light motor vehicle as per the Motor Vehicles Act. License holder of light motor vehicle can drive the vehicle which has weight of 7500 kg. So, learned tribunal had not committed any error in allowing the claim petition. So, appeal filed by the Insurance Company be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in MACD 2017 (3) (SC) 74. 6. So, learned tribunal had not committed any error in allowing the claim petition. So, appeal filed by the Insurance Company be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in MACD 2017 (3) (SC) 74. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for the claimants. 7. Learned tribunal in its order clearly mentioned that NAW1- Pawan Kumar categorically stated in his cross-examination that the vehicles weighing 7500 kg cover in the light motor vehicles and Mini Bus comes in category of light motor vehicle. So, in my considered opinion, learned tribunal has not committed any error in deciding the claim petition in favour of the claimants. Thus, present appeal filed by the Insurance Company being devoid of merti, is liable to be dismissed. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2521/2008:- 8. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the claimants in their claim petition and evidence clearly stated that deceased was getting salary of Rs.3,500/- per month. Witness AW3-Anil Kumar also stated in its evidence that deceased was driving his truck and he was giving Rs.3,500/- per month to the deceased. So, learned tribunal wrongly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that learned tribunal awarded the consortium of Rs.5,000/- which is on the lower side. 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.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.3,000/- towards loss of estate, 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, appeal filed by the claimants be allowed and compensation granted by the learned tribunal be modified. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.8179/2022) decided on 09.12.2022. 10. 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. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.8179/2022) decided on 09.12.2022. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. It is an admitted position that the claimants had not submitted any evidence that income of the deceased was Rs. 3,500/- per month by driving the truck at the time of accident but in my considered opinion, the tribunal without any basis calculated the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month. So, in my considered opinion, on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time, income of the deceased should be calculated as Rs.2,500/- per month. The age of deceased has been determined as 32 years, therefore, applying the multiplier of 16, dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.2500 x 12 x 16 = 4,80,000/-. Taking into consideration the number of dependents i.e. 6 in number, 1/4 of the income should have been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the amount is calculated as Rs.4,80,000 x 1/4 =3,60,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to receive an addition to 40% of the said amount as future prospects (3,60,000 x 40%=1,44,000) 3,60,000 + 1,44,000 = 5,04,000/-. The claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.20,000/- per claimant) towards loss of consortium instead of Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the tribunal. The claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate instead of Rs.3,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards funeral expenses instead of Rs.2,000/- as awarded by the tribunal. Thus, claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.5,04,000/- + 1,20,000/- + 20,000/- + 20,000/- = 6,64,000/- instead of Rs.2,82,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 13. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant National Insurance Company Limited is dismissed. 14. Appeal filed by the claimants Smt. Vali Bai & Ors. is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 01.03.2008 is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to get Rs.6,64,000/-by way of compensation instead of Rs.2,82,000/- as awarded by the tribunal. 13. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant National Insurance Company Limited is dismissed. 14. Appeal filed by the claimants Smt. Vali Bai & Ors. is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 01.03.2008 is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to get Rs.6,64,000/-by way of compensation instead of Rs.2,82,000/- as awarded by the tribunal. Other terms and conditions of the award shall remain unchanged.