CMA against MACT award in motor accident death claim. Court modified award adding future prospects based on Apex Court precedent. Enhanced compensation with interest.
Modified compensation to Rs. 13,96,720 with 6% interest; enhanced amount to be deposited with Tribunal and invested in FD for minors.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1009/2007
--Appellants/claimants I. Sh. Ramnarayan son Jat, resident of ward no. 4, Golion ki Dhani, Ta ur (Driver of Truck no. RJ-14G-9943) 2A. Sh. Kaluram so sident of vill & post Beharipura, via Cho pur. (Owner of Truck no. RI-14G-9943) 2B. Sh. Laxminarayan ansa hai Jat, resident of Nario Ki Dhani, at Dhani, Tehsil Chomu, Dist. Jaipur.
----Respondents/opposite parties. For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashok Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Archana Mantri
(2 of 4)
[CMA- 1009/2007]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
-4
Order
11/01/2019
This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.04.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District Jaipur (for short 'the tribunal'), whereby, the tribunal awarded a X'"" "k, T sum of Rs. 10,04,760~-so$~.en&&f ,+. 43.. c 4 in ~~ong i v- @ --. with interest @ 6% "r' 'I. a, e t&$b.. - per annum. h,t2 ' .:p " - CJ. " ,y q ,, c ,a*-$ @--., VeaknGd counsel for the appellants hassubmitted that %..2 -~.~~~ e2- the triban31 ";..tiw committed an error in awarding lesser cdqpensation. h& The tribunal erred . -I amount towards future prospects of the dec I for the respondent No.3 insurance compa appeal and submitted ,;$ a,"&%J?.?$&& rmined the aged of the deceased as 30 ye; Therefore, the tribu ihing the age of the deceased as 30 years. eased was 32 years at <. the time of accident, r f 16 would be applied instead of 17.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the > learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The claim-petition was filed by the appellants asking for compensation on account of death of Ram Swaroop in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 25.02.2004. The tribunal
(3 of 4)
[CMA- 1009/2007]
assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of Ex.12 as .i Rs.6,910/per month. The same has not been challenged by either of the parties. As the deceased was aged about 32 years and was in Government service at the time of accident, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors,, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, an addition of 50% is liable to
"H towards personal expens% ofit Keeping in view the er of 16 would be laimants. In this way, the amount of c to Rs. 13,26,720/(lO,365x2/3xl2xl6). d&uld be further entitled to 11 receive Rs.70,000/towpa
Accordingly, ly allowed. Impugned award dated 13.04.2006 is modified to the extent that the compensation amount receivable by the claimants is Rs. 13,96,720/instead of Rs. 10,04,760/as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall be the same. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of payment with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today. It is further ordered that the
share of the enhanced amount of the compensation shall be invested in fixed deposit with a nationalised bank for a period of three years and the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the claimants on monthly basis.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in assessing future prospects and compensation for the deceased who was in government service.
Whether the enhancement of the compensation amount to include future prospects under the Apex Court judgment is justified.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.Applied¶20
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sh. Ramnarayan son Jat
Sh. Kaluram
Sh. Laxminarayan
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Smt. Sona Devi
Ku. Aditi
Prakash Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
