Partly allowed

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Indra Devi and Ors.

Rajasthan HC16 Jan 2019CMA/1787/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by insurance company against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Court held a retrial for a fresh assessment of compensation was called for due to incorrect income calculation, though the amount awarded was allowed to stand as the difference.

What did the court decide?

A fresh assessment of compensation is directed based on the correct minimum wage of Rs.4,316-/- per month.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Indra… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 178712018

¶3

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Having Its Registered Office 19, Reliance Center, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Balllard Estate, Mumbai-400001 And Having Its Regional Office At C-Scheme, Man Upasana Tower, 6Th Floor, Sardar Patel Marg, ' Opposite To Hsbc Bank, Jaipur 302001, Through Its Constituent Attorney

¶4

ia. hi hi! f ----Appellant *i$,-s. 3 i.. *-as d$ '\ "" Versus "" -" %' I r.- '4

¶5

I. Smt, f$~d.ra Devi W/o Hansraj B/c Bairwa, Wo Hatiya Ki, %\ -'

¶6

P.si..,sapotra, , .+ Distt. Karoli Raj.

¶7

,4%oo"pnarayan S/o Hansraj B/c Bairwa, R/o Hatiya Ki, P.s. %

¶8

Sapotra, Distt. Karoli Raj.

¶9

Ram Kumar Minor , 7t. In, Minor

¶10

:. Indr,

¶11

Jitendra Chand ~ajpu;f g)o, dijlesh Chand B/c Rajput, R/o YS 9LA **_I n_*

¶12

Amargarh, P.s. i$pora% izi6.; ~spotra, Distt. Raj. Driver Vehicle Tractor @': Jt .v+@4- @&5k\PR$~r.36473., iij$$&, k>% 'T'$.,F';+> +'5.2i8&&4<, ::<

¶13

Mahesh S/o o Bhandaripura, P.s. .I

¶14

Sapotra, Teh. i Raj. Owner Vehicle Tractor No. Rj

¶15

For ~ppellant(s) : Mr. C.S. Jodha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malkhan Chaturvedi

¶16

HBN'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judament / Order

¶17

16/01/2019

¶18

This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company' against the judgment and award dated 22.01.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli (for short 'the tribunal'),

¶19

whereby, the tribunal awarded a sum of RS.8,77,144/as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum.

¶20

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation on the higher side. The tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.4,836/- per month. At the relevant time, minimum wages fixed by the State Government was only Rs.4316. Lj Therefore, month~~+if8 th.~ should have been C" 1 assessed accl+~ngly. The tribunal erred in instead 4%, T- :?ds future prospects of the deceased. VF .ap < L' r ' $<+>

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for thevclaimants !#?qy'('y>". 3 has opposed the appeal,and,*s:upported the impugned judgment and award.

¶23

sions made by the learned counsel for th the material available, on record.

¶24

claimants seeking "&"":a '*' ;f ,$ ,q) 1 -i t.~&.. k"* >% :" @$:3$$?$? -.~~~.ie~:~~,~ !&;% compensation on acc dGf de$$,$@J-l$,yr,S;ingh in a motor vehicle '~L3jf---.~~%-- %,! 4 8, 4 Cr: < --,.h d$.q;i P I I fJ k&+ % %%. 8, * we%;% accident which occurred -,, OX , '1 r.(53.,?013. While assessing the *I- rr<..f.-&-+ ..- ;-.-xr: .- r r-r -.&&8,a'<- , . -2-2 - monthly income of the deceased, it was observed by the tribunal * 4{ *p%s?L 6~x4 &,j & .= # ,. *, < that at the relevant time, prevalent rate of minimum wages fixed by the State Government was Rs.4,836 per month, whereas at the' relevant time, the same was Rs.4,316/per month only. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is liable to be assessed as Rs.4,316/per month i.e. Rs.51,792/per annum. Therefore, to work out the compensation, income of the appellant is liable to be taken as Rs.51,792/- per annum. As the deceased was aged about 45 years, in the light of judgment passed by

¶25

Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors." (supra), the claimants would be entitled to receive an addition of 25% of the said income towards future prospects of the deceased, which comes to Rs.12,948/(511792x25%). Thus, the- income of the deceased comes to Rs.64,740/- (51,792+12,948). Keeping in view the number of dependents, one fourth of the said income is to be ) deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The .!% y ??*.$ I 7f 4; a v 8 7$+-[ deceased was agedcsb#dtuti;45r ?. a . yeaiksat th,e bipe of accident. Thus, fi \ 'id " --b 42 g3 T. the 'tribunal riig.ht1.y applied the multiplier of 24 ,tW work out the rt *I' "9 -'%" dependentp-of the claimants. In this way, the dependency of the rL 4-+ -- claimant? comes to Rs.6,79,770/- (64,7403/414). The claimants would be further e Rs.70,000/towards conventional heads. ation receivable by, the claimants comes +70,000/-).

¶26

tly allowed. Impugned nt that the amount of compensation receivai61&;k!$ f@r&;@$i,pants is Rs 7,49,770/- **_,e:<&X'A&.,Stfl_ 'gbe%4-%yp** A<-. i-2- ...-+.d; .-A -.:? ),I *. 4 %? instead of Rs.8,77,1 the tribunal. Remaining u terms and conditions the same.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Indra Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Indra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalu Ram Vs Kanwaljeet Singh and Another

Nandkishore S/O Sh. Harlal Lodha Vs State of Rajasthan

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kana Ram Meena and Others

Patel Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Vs Roopa and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Geeta Devi and Others

Kumari Suman Vs Phoola Alias Phool Singh and Ors.