Allowed

S B I Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Hansa Devi and Ors.

Rajasthan HC18 Jul 2018CMA/1822/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident compensation appeal, the High Court modified the Tribunal's award. Finding no documentary evidence for a Rs. 10,000 monthly income claim, the Court reduced it to minimum wages. The total compensation for the deceased's next of kin was computed and fixed at Rs. 12,34,105/-.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified; claimants entitled to Rs. 12,34,105/- instead of Rs. 23,07,000/- as compensation.

S B I Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Hansa Devi and… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1822/2018

¶3

Sbi General Insurance Company Limited, Through Regional Manager, Office Natraj 101, 201, 301, Jackson Of Western Express Highway Andheri Purla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 600069, Having Its Head Office At 7-B, Ground Floor, Opposite Metro Piller No. 153, Pusha Road, Rajendra Park, Rajendra Place New Delhi 110060 Through Its Constituent Attorney

¶4

.:- % w .,: ----Non-Claimant/Appellant
~ * , f ; 7 !@@& , :'.,., . : - $&+y$$&,< .,..
" ..,
-
?ddi.!B$~ersM&Lg,b:
;@' \ "'' ~ .. %% $# $5;
I. Smt. .Hama: Devi W/o Late amavarirp'l /c Yadav, R/o
~~&!&~ .-$PI
~an@q&ra', ! 2% Teh. Shrimadhopur, Distt. Sikar, Ragasthan .@ ,L
5 =4- &<br>2. i D/o Late Ramavatar B/c Yadav, R/o Mandpura, Teh.
*A
adhopur, Distt. Sikar, Rajasthan t

¶5

Yadav, R/o Mandpura, Teh.
R/o Mandpura, Teh.
R/o Mandpura, Teh.
Kaushalya Devi dav, R/o Mandpura, Teh.
Shrimadhopur, Dis
;-Claimants/Respondents
Krishan umard 23,&**3 fQi, - Yadav, R/o Villaae , - M
,,,CJ@~C$ 11 ar, .' s Rajasthan Driver Of
Narai, Teh. SI-
$%A@%$& :kt,?@
W@
Truck Trailer No?R
8. Banwarilal S/o R/o Village Rajpura,
Teh. Shahpura, Truck Trailer No. Rj-
14-Gb-6157

¶6

----Non-Claimants/Respondents

¶7

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prateek Sharma Adv. For Respondents No. I : Mr. Rakesh Bhargava Adv. to 6

¶8

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judciment

¶9

18/07/2018

¶10

Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 17.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby, claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal while assessing the amount of compensation has erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. AW-3 Shimbhu Dayal in his cross-examination had deposed that he was not to the payment made by He was could not be asses ade by AW-3.

¶12

Learned cou opposed the appeal and has submitte had examined the employer Shimbhu D he has categorically deposed that he was p per month as salary to Ramavatar Yadav.

¶13

Claimants had fi under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles A lpensation on account of death of Rama motor vehicle accident, '#< -I which had occurred on I\

¶14

The controversy involved in the present case is with regard to the income of the deceased. As per AW-3 Shimbhu Dayal, Ramavatar Yadav was working as a driver on his truck-trailer bearing No.RJ-14-GB-1044. He deposed that he was paying Rs.10,000/- per month by way of wages to Ramavatar Yadav. A perusal of the cross-examination of AW-3 (copy of his statement placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments) reveals that he was not maintaining

¶15

any record with regard to the salary paid by him to the driver or Khalasi of the vehicle. He was also not issuing any receipt regarding salary paid by him.

¶16

Thus, in the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, learned Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. Since, as per evidence on record, deceased was working as a %y KIP., driver, his income 4%~ i3s-ti$bl&roM % 3% &a de bake," ..i as @ rt++.J' ,Rs 5,4341- per month, * "- " @@@ %$ _e_* . i.e., minimum wages fixed by the state qua sdie) worker. 4 2". %" iB Deceaqepwas aged between 26 to 30 years atfhe time of &;$A "t accident., 4ence, appropriate multiplier to worE-o~t the

¶17

dependency of the cla

¶18

Claimants are nd parents of the deceased. Keeping e claimants, 114th out of the income of liable to be deducted towards his personal the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs 17 = Rs. 8,31,504/-. Claimants would be ceive an addition of 40% of the said e prospects of the deceased and the to Rs. 3,32,601/-. % "h*. Claimants would be ~~~t~~&fit@~~~~~ receive Rs. 40,000/towards loss of consortium, Rs.l5,000/towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate.

¶19

Thus, the total compensation amount liable to be received by the claimants comes to Rs.8,31,504 + Rs. 3,32,601 + Rs. \ 40,000 + Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 15,000 = R~.12,34,105/-.

¶20

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 17.02.2018 is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to receive Rs. 12,34,105/by way of compensation

¶21

instead of Rs. 23,07,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The remaining terms and conditions of the award shall remain unchanged.

S B I Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Hansa Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S B I Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Hansa Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Lal Meena Vs Ashok Kumar Sharma and Anr.

Virendra Singh Vs Sujan Singh and Ors.

Smt Lalli Devi and Ors. Vs Rajkumar and Ors.

Omkanwar and Ors. Vs Babusingh and Ors.

Rajesh Vs Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

Geeta Devi Vs Lalchand Meena and Ors.