Partly allowed

Lalchand and Ors. v. H D F C Ergo Gen Insurance Co. Andors

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2019CMA/1/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants. The court modified the tribunal's award from Rs. 7,30,778 to Rs. 8,91,619, ordering the respondent insurer to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified; compensation enhanced to Rs. 8,91,619; respondent to deposit amount plus interest in fixed deposit.

Lalchand and Ors. Vs H D F C Ergo Gen Insurance Co… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FORdRAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1/2017

¶3

Lalchand S/o Shri Rampal B/c Jat, Dahmi Khurd, Post Dahmi Kalan, Teh. Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur

¶4

Santosh Devi W/o Lalchand, B/c Jat, Dahmi Khurd, Post Dahmi Kalan, Teh. Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur

¶5

3. Rampal S/o Gangaram B/c Jat, Dahmi Khurd, Post Dahmi Kalan, Teh. Sanganer, Distt, Jaipur '$ -g

¶6

Manphuli W~~~R~$&B/CIJ$$~~~~ ?- --'$..+a sL -- Khurd, Post Dahmi Kalan, Teh. \zEs+ %aheganer, Distt. jaipur4 f .I-. gxB- . bkx2 %b L. t<---~~~ellnts e 5 .r' Versus -' $2

¶7

I. . Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. Through General Manager, 6ThLy.fjqrj,Leela Business Park, Andheri b *I* \sb * 2% . .: .

¶8

esh Bansal S/o Cross Road Paldi, ehta S/o Shri Gulsan aharani Palace Hatel, , P.s. Bhopalgarh, hide No. Gj 01 Du - I- . - ----Respondents f 3. -" a+. 6 * c* # ' +r* h i.,fi ',, ," **ir %"as ui .-. - -%.&A . -r s =-& A ~;~~~T;;~~~~ 3 :.'- ,ri For Appellant(s) : Mr. )fr Prafap-'Si.righSirohi - '- w e ..+.+ For Respondent(s) a4T~~,,4iL$n8@%rwal * ..- iw " -F -4 T%

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶10

Judqment / Order

¶11

23/01./2019

¶12

This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.10.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur (for short 'the tribunal'), whereby, the tribunal awarded a

(2 of 4)

[CMA- 1/20 171

sum of Rs.7,30,778/as compensation alondwith interest @ 7.5O/0 per annum.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the tribunal committed an error in awarding lesser compensation. The deceased was earning Rs.15,000/per month as he was a driver of heavy vehicle and was operating crane etc. The tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,435/- per -$..t 7 :T -t month only. AS the age?oftth,e_ d,ec.&%'&$d~jas. 24 years, the tribunal 4,; x$.=-%k - -4 !.: %-Ir ' * y .+ +, ,- d f erred in applyil?&he .'.. - multiplier of 13 on the baiis afthe age of the it L parents, ~,h-~reas the multiplier of 18 should have been applied on .' *G'"-) x. the basis?of age of the deceased.

¶18

On the other h-and::+!;a5tmbed -yi,&-$.Ry;>T<* counsel for the respondent .,5 + ,<.xTy$ ' 'y / 4.+; ,+\ ' : _,::x .i).a*';:;r=** $8 - ,s @ 2 2.: ,J **:.2:,3~::$&,<$$:2_* ;,!p r-.. { No. 1-insurance com$any: i,tp $s@,o;sed$e.~~~eal and submitted \ kg 43&&r;.t 5 ?<'=+q~+ - 24t "-. L =;* pa;-$** qj &, ;.* QJ s;.;fk;;t?J.j$$z* @$F~;:;+~A ,;pj;3,y;9:g:E .. **yt7--$:;:>;3; that the tribunal **erredi-')n$;gtq@+y;+.QO~~$lnstead** of 40% towards future prospects of thevd~~e$s:ed~~~-i-itiWe * _pJ;:>_ .$<j.Lj $G!.J{/f),?-&&%; *cJ; ,k.' !e. zA \ .-pGa,. <> 1.; .p2:27 , :-,r%/$. q7i;-:f .- . :f.;,,i Ii conventional heads also^P $ .;,T c ' , *.+y,:.:c.<> si.. '$ a;tf . j **_r<l.** ,, ' . .- ;$ ;ir. c;$k$ the tribunal awarded com8ensatiohi ah tte higher side. 9" \ ' i!! 1 1 .,.- b.4 qi Y j 11 is,, :. ) I have consideFed? the 4-ival submissions made by the J ? - -c.+ 4. & $? 5: *.+ **- L.. * <$<, ..,. ( **9t -Js;** **_:;+*a'_** #,%'.? **_.3_** - * learned counsel for the ,. :p:aJte~~ia:n@~h$d$;f +a: (.it* perused the material ; $ $7 k;, y$ ;. -; ..>-." &!+;. J'- ; $..< 3&;> 4$<~>j!.;, ? ;, ;: I! : available on record, >-:-k+.,% ; . r-2bv&k .- k .~%-ek4dp:$gfi6 **.** ~qi'~~- xt,3:;iq' -? I ., ->s r.45. 1" * -- t;Qs;g;~~,~ , :yNwyp-+&L* **&-...as,--,.-_** * ...., 2 The claim-peE~,tio,~~<ya$ , t. $A filipB!lb$' u I ., 'J the claimants seeking

¶19

compensation on account of death of Sunil in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 01.08.2014. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, no documentary evidence was produced by the appellants to prove the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/per month. Only on the basis of this fact that the deceased was a driver of heavy vehicle and was operating crane etc., it cannot be assumed that the deceased was earning

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[CMA- 1/20 171

¶22

Rs. 15,000/per month. Therefore, the trib~nal rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,434/per month i.e. Rs.65,208/- per annum on the basis of prevalent rate of minimum wages fixed by the State Government at the relevant time for a skilled labour. As the deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. j%& T\l EY g Pranay Sethi & ,.o&s', pep.ol;ted- ni 017 SC 5157, an q I- &, addition of 40f!0 IS to be awarded towards % $* 3. deceasedI"i",~~~ch comes to Rs.26,083/-. F k Pk&& '3 .&&' u decease;i*comes to Rs.91,291/- (65,208+26,083). Keeping% view ~~YVLi"ih the fact that deceased was uhWa"?tiFd, one half of the said income irP-':p&hf " Gq c"",: ytLaF"T, -- is liable to be d expenses of the deceased. As the dec 24 years at the time of accident. Thus, ency of the claimants, multiplier of 18 would his way, the amount of compensation comes ,29lxl/2xl8). The claimants would b , receive a sum of Rs.70,000/- toward us, the total amount of compensation recei.~~ble-~~y~~~.g~~~cIaimants .,. -.. 7p@-'v .. ,i 6 comes to - The appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed. Impugned award dated 18.10.2016 is modified to the extent that the compensation amount receivable by the claimants is Rs.8,91,619/instead of Rs.7,30,778/as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall be the same. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount

¶23

(4 of 4)

¶24

[CMA- 1/20 171

¶25

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 three months from today. It is ordered that the share of the enhanced amount of the compensation shall be invested in fixed deposit with a nationalised bank initially for a period of 2 years and the interest accrued thereon shall be paid - to the, claimants on monthly basis.

Lalchand and Ors. v. H D F C Ergo Gen Insurance Co. Andors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalchand and Ors. v. H D F C Ergo Gen Insurance Co. Andors

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

Smt Sumitra and Others Vs Rajesh Kumar and Another

Bharat Udyog Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Andors Vs Shri Ajay Singh and Ors.

Satyanarayan Vs Radhey Shyam Agarwal and Anr.

I C I C I Lombard General Ilns Vs Shankar Banjara and Ors.

Chola Mandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Vs Kim Sune and Ors.

Smt Vimla Devi and Others Vs Kana Ram and Others