The appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging an award of Rs. 18,99,400 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for death due to negligent driving. The court upheld the quantum as just compensation.
Appeal rejected; impugned judgment and award of Rs. 18,99,400 upheld.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1936/2018
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Authorised Officer, T.P. Hub, 637-B, Third Floor, Bhansali Tower, Residency Road, Jodhpur. (Insurer)
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukul Singhvi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Judgment
07/01/2019
Appellant, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., has laid this appeal to challenge judgment & award dated 6th of March, 2018, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (for short, ‘learned Tribunal’). The learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment & award, upon adjudicating the claim of respondent-
(2 of 5)
[CMA-1936/2018]
claimants, partly allowed it and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.18,99,400/-.
Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that on the fateful day of 10th March 2016, in front of Sangam College, near Chandan Petrol Pump, Bhilwara, Truck bearing registration No. MP-09-HG4822, driven in rash and negligent manner, hit Jai Prakash and Sanwar Lal. Due to the accident, Jai Prakash expired and Sanwar Lal suffered grave and serious injuries. Respondentclaimants, being dependents of deceased Jai Prakash, in order to claim compensation, filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’) before the learned Tribunal. Under different heads, claimants quantified total compensation of Rs.73,30,000/-.
After issuance of summons by learned Tribunal, driver and owner of the truck filed joint written statement and denied the averments made therein. It is averred by them that the accident did not take place on account of driving of truck rashly and negligently and as it was insured with the Insurance Company, they are not liable to pay any compensation. In the return, the appellant-insurer also pleaded that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased himself. Apart from this, as usual, appellant Insurance Company also incorporated all the objections for seeking absolvement from its liability to pay compensation.
Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, settled four issues for determination. For proving their case, on
(3 of 5)
[CMA-1936/2018]
behalf of respondent-claimants, A.W.1 Smt. Raju Devi, A.W.2 Sanwarlal, and A.W.3 Dinesh appeared in the witness box. Besides producing documentary evidence, in all, thirty-nine documents were produced by the respondent-claimants, which were exhibited. For substantiating its defence, no documentary or oral evidence was tendered by non-claimants.
The learned Tribunal, after conclusion of evidence of rival parties, heard final arguments and on the basis of material available on record decided all the issues in favour of respondentclaimants and against non-claimants for awarding compensation and accordingly partly allowed the claim petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment & award.
Upon perusal of the impugned judgment & award as well as available material, it is abundantly clear that learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.1, regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, has rightly placed reliance on documentary and ocular evidence of the respondent-claimants. It is also noteworthy that the non-claimants did not produce any oral or documentary evidence, and therefore, the learned Tribunal has decided the said issue in favour of respondent-claimants.
Adverting to finding on Issue No.2, suffice it to observe that at the time of accident, the non-claimant No.1 was the owner and non-claimant No.2 was its driver and it was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. In this view of the matter, in my
(4 of 5)
[CMA-1936/2018]
opinion, the findings and conclusions of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.2 cannot be faulted.
While deciding Issue No.3 & 4, pertaining to quantum of compensation and fixing liability to pay compensation, suffice it to observe that the learned Tribunal, while assessing the amount of compensation for loss of dependency, has relied upon verdicts in case of G. Dhannashekhar V/s. M.D. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. [2014 RAR (SC) 49] and Meenu V/s. Satya Pradhyuman [2014 RAR (SC 193] and has rightly taken monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-. Learned Tribunal considering the age of deceased applied multiplier of 18 and for adding 40% future prospects has relied on the latest decision of Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Praney Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] the deceased being a self-employed person. Therefore, the assessment of compensation for loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.12,96,000/- is just and reasonable. The learned Tribunal under other different heads has also rightly awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses, and Rs.15,000/- for loss of love & affection and arrived at the total compensation to the tune of Rs.18,99,400/- and held the nonclaimants jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.
In totality of the circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is based on fair assessment and same is satisfying the requirements of just compensation within
(5 of 5)
[CMA-1936/2018]
the four corners of Section 166 of the Act. By no stretch of imagination, the amount of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal can be categorized as excessive or exorbitant warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction by this Court.
Resultantly, the instant appeal fails and same is, hereby,
rejected.
(P.K. LOHRA),J
17-a.asopa/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is excessive or exorbitant warranting interference by this Court.
Whether the findings regarding rash and negligent driving and quantum of compensation are sustainable.
Whether the impugned judgment and award dated 6th March, 2018 should be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G. Dhannashekhar V/s. M.D. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd.Relied on¶34
G. Dhannashekhar V/s. M.D. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. [2014 RAR (SC) 49]
Meenu V/s. Satya PradhyumanRelied on¶34
Meenu V/s. Satya Pradhyuman [2014 RAR (SC 193]
National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Praney Sethi & Ors.Relied on¶34
National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Praney Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Raju Devi W/o Late Shri Jai Prakash Jat
Ankit S/o Late Shri Jai Prakash Jat
Smt. Ugmi Devi W/o Shri Rameshwar Jat
Rameshwar S/o Shri Balu Jat
Shahid Hussain S/o Chand Mohd. Nagori
P.K. LOHRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
