Dismissed

Oriental Insuranmce Ltd. v. Smt Gendi Devi and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Sept 2017CMA/1275/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a miscellaneous appeal preferred by an Insurance Company against a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal award. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court upheld the Tribunal's deduction of one-third for personal expenses, noting the lack of respondent appearance. The appeal was summarily dismissed with the stay vacated.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed summarily; stay vacated; record returned.

Oriental Insuranmce Ltd. Vs Smt Gendi Devi and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1275 / 2005

¶3

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 70, Panchwati Raghu Marg,Alwar having its Regional Office at Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur, through its Constituted Attorney.

¶4

---Non-Claimant/Appellant

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Smt. Gendi Devi, W/o Late Shri Teja Ram, aged about 55 years.

¶7

Rameshwar Saini S/o Late Shri Teja Ram, aged about 33 years. Both by caste Saini, R/o Dhani Nabdawali, Behind Shyam Temple, Ward No. 7, Baska Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur(Raj.).

¶8

---Claimants/Respondents

¶9

Virendra Jatawat, S/o Vishambhar Jatawat, R/o E.M.I.C. Colony, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur (Driver & Owner of Car No. RJ-14T2958)

¶10

---Non-Claimants/Respondents

¶11

_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agarwal For Respondent(s) : None present

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Order

¶13

19/09/2017

¶14

The present misc. Appeal is preferred by the appellantInsurance Company against the award dated 11.03.2005 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur in Claim Case No. 713/2002 (Smt. Gendi Devi And Ors. vs. Virendra Jatawat And Ors.) whereby learned Tribunal allowed the

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CMA-1275/2005]

¶17

claim petition of respondents preferred under Section 166 of M.V. Act and awarded Rs. 3,53,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of petition and Rs. 1,000/for cost of proceedings against the appellant and respondent No.3.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company submits that since claimants are widow and major son of deceased, therefore deduction should be made as one half instead of 1/ 3 but learned Tribunal wrongly deducted self- expenditure of deceased only 1/ 3, therefore instead of 1/ 3, deduction should be applied as one half and the appeal may be disposed of accordingly.

¶19

Since, no-one appeared on behalf of respondents.

¶20

Admittedly, respondent No. 1 and 2 are the claimants who are widow and son of deceased as such there were three members in family including deceased and deceased has expired.

¶21

In the matter of Fakeerappa And Anr vs Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory reported in (2004) 2 SCC 473, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that :-

¶22

“What would be the percentage of deduction for

¶23

personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula of universal application. It would depend upon circumstances of each case. The deceased undisputedly was a bachelor. Stand of the insurer is that after marriage, the contribution to the parents would have been lesser and, therefore, taking an overall view the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in fixing the deduction.

¶24

It has to be noted that the ages of the parents as disclosed in the Claim Petition were totally unbelievable. If

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CMA-1275/2005]

¶27

the deceased was aged about 27 years as found at the time of post mortem and about which there is no dispute, the father and mother could not have been aged 38 years and 35 years respectively as claimed by them in the Claim Petition. Be that as it may, taking into account special features of the case we feel it would be appropriate to restrict the deduction for personal expenses to one-third of the monthly income.”

¶28

Since, in the matter of Fakeerappa And Anr vs Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court restricted the deduction for personal expenses to 1/ 3 of the monthly income, accordingly learned tribunal also deducted 1/3 of monthly income as personal expenditure of deceased, therefore no interference is called for in this matter and this Appeal devoids merit which is hereby dismissed summarily.

¶29

Accordingly, stay is vacated.

¶30

Record of the Trial Court be returned forthwith with the

¶31

copy of judgment.

¶32

S. Kumawat/06

Oriental Insuranmce Ltd. v. Smt Gendi Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insuranmce Ltd. v. Smt Gendi Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Amar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Ramesh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ramotar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Ram Laxman @ Lakhan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp