Dismissed

Bhagyawanti Mertia and Anr. v. Mushtak Ahmed @ Mustak Bhai Ghogha and Ors.

Rajasthan HC27 Aug 2019CMA/240/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recomputed the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by reducing the future prospects enhancement from 50% to 40% as per the Supreme Court ruling in Pranay Sethi, determining a fixed sum for different claim cases.

What did the court decide?

Compensation recomputed to Rs. 15,66,372/- and Rs. 12,39,600/- and interest at 7.5% granted; appeals disposed of.

Bhagyawanti Mertia and Anr. Vs Mushtak Ahmed @… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2797/2016

The O.I.C. Ltd.

----Appellant

Versus

Bhagywanti Mertiya and ors.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

1. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2789/2016 2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 240/2017

¶11

3. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 241/2017

¶12

For Appellants : Mr. L.D. Khatri For Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Shah

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶14

Judgment

¶15

27/08/2019

¶16

All these appeals arise out of the one and same award and therefore, they shall stand decided by this common judgment.

¶17

The Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 2797/2016 and 2789/2016 have been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 240/2017 & 241/2017 have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation, in respect of the Award dated 22.09.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in Claim Case Nos. 137/2013 and 74/2013.

¶18

The claimants preferred the respective claim petitions on various grounds before the learned tribunal for grant of

¶19

[CMA-2797/2016]

¶20

(2 of 5)

¶21

compensation. The separate replies were filed on behalf of the non-claimant - insurance company denying the allegations in the claim petition. Thereafter, on completion of the pleadings the learned tribunal framed the issues.

¶22

After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned tribunal decided the claim petitions of the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 17,73,118/- and Rs. 14,23,000/-, respectively, in favour of the claimants and directed the appellant to pay an interest @ 7.5% per annum on the amount awarded.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

Mr. L.D. Khatri, learned counsel for the appellant – Oriental Insurance Company Limited submits that although, the appeals have been filed by the insurance company on numerous grounds but in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.L.P. (Civil) Case No. 25590/2014 ( National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi & Ors.) reported in 2017/ACJ/2700, 2017(4)J.L.J.R. 275, 2017(4)P.L.J.R. 261, the computation of the award is required to be recomputed. Learned counsel further submits that computation of the award made by the learned tribunal qua future prospects is on the higher side as admittedly, the deceased were less than 40 years of age and was not in any permanent job and therefore, the learned tribunal should have taken into consideration only 40% increase in the income of the deceased towards future prospects. Since the learned tribunal has computed the award by taking into consideration 50% increase in the income of the deceased towards the future prospects, the same is required to be reduced to 40%.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that there are other grounds, on which the claimants are

¶26

[CMA-2797/2016]

¶27

(3 of 5)

¶28

entitled for a higher compensation. But taking into consideration the fact that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has not made the computation of award qua future prospects in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), and therefore, the same may be recomputed in the light of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

¶29

Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the award impugned is recomputed as under :-

¶30

S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 2797/2016 & 240/2017

¶31

For future prospects :-	40% of 1,21,934/-	Rs.	Rs. 48,774/-/-
	(Annual Income deceased)	of
Rs. 1,21,934/- + Rs.	48,774/-		Rs. 1,70,708/-
Amount t spent on h	o be deducted imself (annual).	as	Rs. 1,70,708/- 1/2 = Rs. 85,354/-
Dependence Amount	(Annual)		Rs. 1,70,708/- - Rs. 85,354/- = Rs. 85,354/-

¶32

The age of deceased was 23 years therefore, a multiplier of 18 will be used.

¶33

(I)	Compensation due death	to 85,354/- x 18	Rs. 15,36,372/-
(II)	For the Loss of Estate		Rs. 15,000/-
(III)	Funeral Expenses		Rs. 15,000 /-

¶34

[CMA-2797/2016]

¶35

(4 of 5)

¶36

Total Rs. 15,66,372/-

¶37

S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 2789/2016 & 241/2017

¶38

For future prospects :- 40% of Rs. 8,000/- (Income of deceased)	Rs. 3,200/-/-
Rs. 8,000/- + Rs. 3,200/-	Rs. 11,200/-
Amount to be deducted as spent on himself	Rs. 11,200/- 1/2 = Rs. 5,600/-
Dependence Amount	Rs. 11,200/- - Rs. 5,600/- = Rs. 5,600/-

¶39

The age of deceased was 24 years therefore, a multiplier of

¶40

18 will be used.

¶41

(I)	Compensation due death	to Rs. 5600/- x 12 x 18	Rs. 12,09,600/-
(II)	For the Loss of Estate		Rs. 15,000/-
(III)	Funeral Expenses		Rs. 15,000 /-
		Total	Rs. 12,39,600/-

¶42

No other grounds have been pressed into service by the learned counsel for the parties, therefore, the other factors taken into consideration by the learned tribunal are being not disturbed.

¶43

Consequently, in view of the calculation made above, the respondents-claimants are entitled for a total amount of compensation of Rs. 15,66,372/- (in CMA Nos.2797/16 & 240/2017) and Rs. 12,39,600/- (in CMA Nos.2789/16 &

¶44

[CMA-2797/2016]

¶45

(5 of 5)

¶46

241/2017). The appellants are also entitled to an interest @ 7.5% on the awarded sum from the date of filing of the claim petitions. The amount so determined above shall be paid to the respondents-claimants within a period of four weeks.

¶47

With the above modifications, the present misc. appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Stay petition in CMA No. 2797/2016 & 2789/2016 also stand disposed of.

¶48

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶49

49-53-Inder/-

Bhagyawanti Mertia and Anr. v. Mushtak Ahmed @ Mustak Bhai Ghogha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagyawanti Mertia and Anr. v. Mushtak Ahmed @ Mustak Bhai Ghogha 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

Hdfc Ergo General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sonal and Ors.

Mahi Lal @ Mai Lal Vs Smt. Vimla and Ors.

Leela Ben and Ors. Vs Teja Ram and Ors.

Hdfc Ergo General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Ramesh Kumar and Ors.

Usha Devi and Anr. Vs Mushtak Ahmed @ Mustak Bhai Ghogha and Ors.

Smt. Kalawati and Ors. Vs Jaipal and Ors.