Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 470 (RAJ)

Bhagoti v. Sampat Singh

2024-03-18

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1. The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dated 14.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur District Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 624/2014 (1215/2010), titled as "Smt. Bhagoti & Ors. v. Sampat Singh & Ors", whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs. 6, 48, 200/- along with interest @ 8 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition as compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants (for short 'the claimants'). 2. CMA No. 2360/2016 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal whereas CMA No. 1353/2016 has been filed by the National Insurance Company Limited (for short 'the Insurance Company') challenging the judgment & award passed by the Tribunal on the various grounds. 3. CMA No. 2360/2016-Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased-Jagdish Narayana as Rs. 4, 050/- per month on the basis of minimum wages. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the deceased was doing agricultural & Animal Husbandry work and earning Rs. 15, 000/- per month. So, income of the deceased be considered as Rs. 15, 000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 15, which it is on lower side. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/5th amount from the income of the deceased as his personal expenses, whereas according to the number of dependents, it should be 1/10th of the deceased's income. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits the Tribunal has awarded very meagre amount towards love and affection & loss of consortium as well as funeral expenses. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate. So, judgment of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company in CMA No. 1353/2016 has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded the amount of compensation in favour of the claimants. So, judgment of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company in CMA No. 1353/2016 has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded the amount of compensation in favour of the claimants. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4, 050/- per month. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that the Insurance Company by way of evidence clearly proved that the alleged vehicle was being driven without a valid permit. The Insurance Company had given a notice to the owner of the alleged vehicle but he did not submit any valid permit. So, the judgment and award dated 14.01.2016 passed by the Tribunal be modified and recovery rights be given to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited & Ors. reported in 2018 ACJ 1768 ; (2) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Poonam W/o Late Vasudev Mangtani & Ors. in S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 255/2003 decided on 10.07.2018; (3) National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Pushpa Devi & Ors. reported in MACD 2013 (3) (Raj.) 1692. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is an admitted position that the claimants failed to adduce any cogent evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 15, 000/- per month. In my considered opinion, income of the deceased should be calculated considering him as unskilled labour on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time i.e. Rs. 100/- per day. The Tribunal has not awarded towards future prospects, whereas as per age of the deceased i.e. 40 years, it should be 25% of the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/5th amount from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses because deceased had 5 dependents as claimant No. 2 had attained the age of majority. The Tribunal has not awarded towards future prospects, whereas as per age of the deceased i.e. 40 years, it should be 25% of the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/5th amount from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses because deceased had 5 dependents as claimant No. 2 had attained the age of majority. The Tribunal has also awarded very meagre amount towards loss of love and affection & loss of consortium, whereas it should be Rs. 40, 000/- towards loss of love and affection & loss of consortium to each claimant. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate, whereas it should be Rs. 15, 000/-. So, the judgment of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under: Total income for skilled labour on the basis of minimum wages prevailed at the relevant point of time (monthly) 100 X 30 = Rs. 3,000/- Annual Income 3,000 X 12 = Rs. 36,000/- According to the age of the deceased i.e. 40 years, Multiplier 15 to be applied 36,000 X 15 = Rs. 5,40,000/- Since the claimant No. 2-Rajaram was a major person and deceased had 6 dependents, therefore 1/4th income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased 5,40,000 - 1,35,000 = Rs. 4,05,000/- As per age of the deceased, 25% towards future prospects(+) 4,05,000 + 1,01,250 = Rs. 5,06,250/- Loss of consortium to claimant No. 1 (40, 000X1) Love & Affection to each claimant Nos.2 to 7 (+) (Rs. 40, 000 X5) Rs. 2,80,000/- Loss of Estate(+) Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses(+) Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 8,16,250/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 6,48,200/- Enhanced Amount of compensation 8,16,250 - 6,48,200 =  Rs. 1,68,050/- 8. The claimants are entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 1, 68, 050/- as compensation. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs. 1, 68, 050/- (8, 16, 250- 6, 48, 200) 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 shall be entitled to withdrawn the same. The enhanced amount shall carry @ 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. 9. On deposition of the said amount, the claimants shall be entitled to withdrawn the same. The enhanced amount shall carry @ 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. 9. The Tribunal has also committed an error in not giving recovery rights to the Insurance Company from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle because the owner and driver failed to submit any valid permit, despite notice having been given to them by the Insurance Company. So, in my considered opinion, the appeal of the Insurance Company also deserves to be partly allowed on the ground of recovery rights. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the claimants and the appeal filed by the insurance company both are partly allowed. The Insurance Company shall pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then it can recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 11. Impugned judgment and award is modified accordingly. Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.