Dismissed

Iffco Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Pyarelal and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Sept 2018CMA/3072/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal by an insurance company challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 8.57 lakh for the accidental death of a respondent's son, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's quantum of compensation. The court observed that the Tribunal correctly applied the Sarla Verma principles, despite the deceased being a bachelor, and refused to interfere as the award satisfied the requirement

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous appeal was rejected and the impugned judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal were upheld.

Iffco Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Pyarelal and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3072/2017

¶3

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Pyarelal son of Mana Khatik, age 46 year

¶7

Smt. Dali @ Sosar wife of Pyarelal Khatik, age 36 year All are Resident of Karoli, Delvada, Delvada Police Station, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand Raj.

¶8

Dilip Kumar Mali son of Hardev Mali, Resident of Lalbagh Nathdwara, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand Raj..

¶9

Sardar Bhagat Singh Public School, Address Sihada, Nathdwara, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand Raj.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. MP Solanki

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Order

¶13

24/09/2018

¶14

By the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’), appellant-Insurance Company has challenged judgment and award dated 24.03.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nathdwara (for short, ‘Tribunal’). Learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, while adjudicating claim of the respondent-claimants under Section 166 of the Act, quantified and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.8,57,400/-for untimely accidental death of their son Mahaveer Khatik at the age of 25 years.

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CMA-3072/2017]

¶17

Upon perusal of the impugned award, in my opinion, learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has rightly decided Issue No.1 in favour of respondent-claimants. The finding recorded by learned Tribunal on the said issue clearly reflects that it has made sincere endeavour to adjudicate the same on the basis of materials available on record. It is also borne out from perusal of the impugned judgment and award that evidence tendered by the respondent-claimants remained un-controverted, inasmuch as, no counter evidence was adduced by the appellant-Insurer or other non-claimants. While switching on to Issue No.2, which was settled on the basis of objections raised by the appellant-Insurer in the written statement, the learned Tribunal has decided the same against the appellant-Insurer for want of any evidence tendered on its behalf.

¶18

The crucial issue, i.e., Issue No.3 regarding quantum of compensation, is decided by learned Tribunal by relying on decision of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr.: (2009) 6 SCC 121 and applying requisite multiplier of 18.

¶19

While it is true that deceased was bachelor and learned Tribunal has made 1/3^rd deduction instead of 1/2 deduction for personal expenses but then learned Tribunal has not at all awarded any compensation for future prospects. In National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi [2017 (13) Scale 12], Supreme Court has held:-

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[CMA-3072/2017]

¶22

“61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record ` our conclusions:-

¶23

(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

¶24

(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.

¶25

(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

¶26

(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

¶27

(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

¶28

(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

¶29

(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

¶30

(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”

¶31

Looking to the age of the deceased, learned Tribunal ought to have added 40% of the income as future prospects. In totality, the amount of compensation determined by learned Tribunal is

¶32

(4 of 4)

¶33

[CMA-3072/2017]

¶34

moderate and reasonable which satisfies the requirement of just compensation within the meaning of Section 168 of the Act in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case. As such, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the finding of learned Tribunal on Issue No.3 also.

¶35

Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby rejected.

¶36

(P.K. LOHRA),J
Bharti/14

Iffco Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Pyarelal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iffco Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Pyarelal 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

Raju Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Vs Daudayal Prabhu Mandir Pranyas Hathi Ram

Pitambar Das Vs Rakesh Kumar and Ors.

Mallu Ram Vs Lrs of Kashi Ram

Raja Ram @ Sandeep Kumar Vs Inder Raj

Lrs of Bhura Ram Vs Danaram and Ors.