Dismissed

Smt. Chakki and Ors. v. Mansukh Bhai J Bariya and Ors.

Rajasthan HC29 Oct 2018CMA/457/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed an appeal by the widow and dependents challenging the compensation of Rs. 9,45,000 awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Upholding the Tribunal's finding on the deceased's age and income, the Court held the award reasonable under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no interference in the impugned award of Rs. 9,45,000/-.

Smt. Chakki and Ors. Vs Mansukh Bhai J Bariya and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 457/2017

¶4

Smt Chakki wife of Late Lalu Ram,

¶5

Mitha Lal son of Late Lalu Ram,

¶6

Bheru Lal son of Late Lalu Ram,

¶7

Kamlesh son of Late Lalu Ram,

¶8

Shaitan @ Mukesh son of Late Lalu Ram, No. 4 & 5 both minors through their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Chakki,

¶9

All By Caste Nayak, Resident of Kishanpura, Dhayla, Kelwa Police Station, District Rajsamand.

¶10

----Appellants-Claimants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Mansukh Bhai J Bariya son of Jesingh Bhai Bariya, Resident Of Dhandalpur, Tehsil Shahera, District Panchmahal Gujrat (Dirver of Vehicle)

¶13

Omkar Shilp India Private Limited, Plot No. 176, Ward No./ 2-B, Adhaipur, Bhuj Kanchh Gujrat (Owner of Vehicle)

¶14

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur, through Its Branch Manager.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Appellant(s) : Mr. JVS Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Joshi

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶18

Order

¶19

29/10/2018

¶20

Appellant-claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’), questioning the amount of compensation quantified and awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (for short, ‘learned Tribunal’), by its judgment & award dated 02.08.2016. Learned

¶21

(2 of 4)

¶22

[CMA-457/2017]

¶23

Tribunal, by the impugned judgment & award, while adjudicating claim of the appellants under Section 140 read with Section 166 of the Act, has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.9,45,000/under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum.

¶24

The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are that as a consequence of collision of Lalu Ram’s motorcycle with dumper bearing No. RJ-30-GA-3887 he succumbed to the injuries. As per version of the appellants, at the time of accident, deceased Lalu Ram was 49 years of age and involved in business of transport. It is specifically pleaded in the claim petition that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle dumper. The claim petition was not contested by owner and driver of the insured vehicle and it is only the respondent-Insurer, who has joined the issue to contest the claim. On the basis of pleadings of rival parties, learned Tribunal framed four issues for determination and the parties led their evidence. On behalf of appellants, two witnesses were examined and 22 documents were exhibited, however, no evidence was tendered by the Insurance Company.

¶25

Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other materials available on record proceeded to decide Issue Nos.1 & 2 simultaneously and both these issues were decided in favour of the appellants. The third issue, which was settled on the basis of objections raised on behalf of Insurer, was decided against Insurer precisely by citing the reason that no evidence is tendered on behalf of it to prove that terms of the insurance policy are violated by the insured.

¶26

(3 of 4) [CMA-457/2017]

¶27

While switching on to Issue No.4 regarding quantum of compensation, learned Tribunal has discussed the evidence threadbare and in absence of any cogent proof about age of the deceased, upon considering the evidence of widow, found that at the time of death Lalu Ram (deceased) was approximately 60 years of age. With this finding, learned Tribunal has declined to award any compensation for future prospects. Learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence, recorded its definite finding that at the time of death, deceased was earning Rs.1,20,000/- per annum and after making ¼^th deduction, worked out annual income as Rs.90,000/- and by applying multiplier of 8 awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.7,20,000/- for loss of dependency. Besides that, for loss of love and affection as well as consortium, learned Tribunal has awarded consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant-claimants. That apart, funeral expenses and other expenses, including transportation, were also awarded and finally the learned Tribunal quantified compensation to the tune of Rs.9,45,000/-.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment & award.

¶29

After perusal of the impugned judgment & award, more particularly finding on Issue No.4, in my view, learned Tribunal has discussed the entire evidence available on record meticulously. Moreover, learned Tribunal, while quantifying the compensation, has also taken note of the authoritative pronouncements of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] and Neeta & Ors. Vs.

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[CMA-457/2017]

¶32

Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Kolhapur : 2015 ACJ 598.

¶33

In the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, per annum income of the deceased, assessed by the learned Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable. For making assessment of the income of deceased, learned Tribunal has rightly considered a vital fact that he was not paying income-tax and no proof in this behalf is furnished by the appellants. That apart, assessment of age of the deceased too is founded on cogent reasons in the backdrop of evidence and other available material.

¶34

In view thereof, I am satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is just and reasonable, satisfying the requirements of Section 168 of the Act, and consequently, no interference to that extent in the impugned judgment & award is warranted.

¶35

Resultantly, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶36

(P.K. LOHRA),J

¶37

Bharti/36

Smt. Chakki and Ors. v. Mansukh Bhai J Bariya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chakki and Ors. v. Mansukh Bhai J Bariya 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

Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Limited Vs Smt. Sugana and Ors.

Naveen Kumar Vs Payal

Aadram Vs Prahalad

Narendra Kaur Vs Gurnam Singh

Lrs.of Smt.Manju Lata Vs Prem Prakash

Manohar Lal Vs Baljinder Singh