Baby Devi And Anr. Vs Bhavesh Singh And Ors.

The Manager, M/s Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, E/8 EPIP Ricco Industrial Area, Sitapura, P.O. & P.S.-Sitapur, Jaipur-302022, Rajasthan … …. Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

For the Appellants	----- : Mr.	Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Insurance Co.	: Mr.	Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1	: Mr. -----	Ayush Kumar Verma, Advocate

¶13

Oral Order

¶14

14 / Dated : 08.04.2025

¶15

Heard the parties.

¶16

The claimants are in appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in T(MV) Case No.189 of 2011.

¶17

The factum of accident is not in dispute as the findings recorded by the Tribunal has not been assailed by the claimant or by the Insurance Company.

¶18

It is argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants that the deceased was in the business of readymade clothes from which he had a monthly income of Rs. 8,000/- per month. P.Ws. 1 to 4 have consistently stated regarding the income of the deceased of Rs. 8,000/- to 10,000/- from cloth business. Despite this, learned Tribunal has discarded the oral evidence and assessed the income of the deceased taking notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Further, no award of compensation has been made with respect to

¶19

2025:JHHC:10853

¶20

loss of prospect of future income and a meager amount has been awarded under the conventional head.

¶21

Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, defends the impugned judgment and award of compensation and submitted that no documentary evidence or income tax return has been filed to substantiate the claim that the deceased was in the cloth business.

¶22

It is further argued that the deceased was minor, aged 16 years at the time of accident, as per the postmortem examination report, adduced into evidence on behalf of the claimants and marked as Ext.3. No contrary evidence has been led either driving license or the educational certificate of the deceased to show that he was major at the time of accident. As per the F.I.R. (Ext.1), accident took place when the deceased was driving a motorcycle which met with an accident with the truck and there is no document to show that he was having any driving license at the time of accident. In this view of the matter, it was a case of contributory negligence.

¶23

As the deceased was minor there was no infirmity in the finding of the learned Tribunal by taking notional income of the deceased, as no document with regard to business was adduced into evidence.

¶24

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of learned Tribunal. The age assessment of the deceased as16 years, has been taken as per postmortem report, as there was no other contrary evidence to suggest otherwise. Once it is accepted that he was a minor aged 16 years at the time of accident, the claim of income of Rs. 8,000/- from the cloth business does not inspire any confidence and has been rightly not been accepted by the learned Tribunal.

¶25

There is no merit so far, the plea of contributory negligence has been raised on behalf of the Insurance Company at this stage. A finding of fact has been recorded by learned Tribunal on the basis of the F.I.R., charge-sheet and other oral evidence regarding rashness

¶26

2

¶27

2025:JHHC:10853

¶28

and negligence on the part of driver of the offending truck resulting in the accident. Finding on the factum of accident needs no interference on this count.

¶29

So far as the claim for enhancement is concerned, there is a merit for claim of enhancement, as the award of compensation under the head of future prospect has not been made which will be 40% of the total award of compensation of Rs. 1,35,000 + 40%.

¶30

10.The total compensation amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that 40% future prospect of Rs. 1,35,000/- be added to it and thus, it comes to the amount of Rs. 1,89,000/-. Further the amount under the conventional head of Rs. 4,500/- was already awarded by the learned Tribunal and now it is enhanced to Rs. 65,500/-. So, the final compensation amount comes to Rs. 2,59,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim application.

¶31

The Insurance Company is accordingly directed to pay the compensation amount to the Tribunal within one month from the date of this order. The learned Tribunal shall disburse it according to the terms fixed by it and the amount already paid shall be adjusted to the final compensation amount.

¶32

The judgment so far as the right of recovery is concerned, it is not being interfered with.

¶33

Misc. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶34

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶35

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶36

AKT/Satendra

¶37

3

Baby Devi And Anr. v. Bhavesh Singh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby Devi And Anr. v. Bhavesh Singh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Vs The Divisional Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd. And Anr.

The Divisional Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd. Represented Thr Its Asst Manager Vs Pankaj Kumar and Anr.

Sanjeev Kumar Keshri Vs Sarawati Devi and Others

National Insurance Company Limited Through Assistant Manager Jharkhand Legal Cell Vs Mst Kamal Mukhi Devi And Ors.

The Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Reprr Thr Its Sr Divisional Branch Manager Vs Janardan Mondal Represented Through His Wife Geeta Mondal And Anr.

Sabina Khatoon and Ors. Vs the National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.