Partly allowed

The New India Assurance Compan v. Devi Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Feb 2019CMA/3277/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly, modifying the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court held that the Tribunal should have assessed income based on minimum wages and deducted one-half for personal expenses since the deceased was unmarried, resulting in a reduced total compensation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award of Rs. 3,67,000 is modified to Rs. 3,41,974/-; remaining terms remain the same.

The New India Assurance Compan Vs Devi Singh and Ors. — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3277/2006

¶3

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Its Regional Manager, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶4

----Appellant/defendant No. 5

¶5

Versus

¶6

Devi Singh S/o Banay Singh, aged 45 years

¶7

Smt. Phoolwati W/o Devi Singh, aged 60 years, By Caste Jat, R/o Pharse, Tehsil Bayana Distt. Bharatpur.

¶8

Respondents/Claimants.

¶9

Man Singh S/o Ram Prasad, By Caste Gurjar,

¶10

Mahaveer S/o Ram Prasad, By Caste Gurjar,

¶11

Must. Barfi Widow Ram Prasad, By Caste Gurjar, All resident of Jhumra, Tehsil Bari, Distt. Dholpur. (Owners).

¶12

Kedar S/o Harprasad, By Caste Gurjar, Resident of Saieya, Distt. Agra (U.P.). (Driver).

¶13

----Respondents/Opposite parties No. 1 to 4.

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Mathur

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶16

Judgment / Order

¶17

01/02/2019

¶18

This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company for seeking the compensation against the judgment and award dated 31.07.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ADJ No.1, Bayana, Bharatpur (for short ‘the tribunal’) whereby, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,67,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum.

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CMA-3277/2006]

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation on the higher side. The tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- without any basis. At the relevant time, rate of minimum wages fixed by the State for a unskilled labourer was Rs. 1,560/- per month only. The tribunal also erred in deducting 1/3 instead of 1/2 of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. As the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident, 1/2 of the income should have been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants no 1 & 2 has opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment and award.

¶23

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶24

The claim-petition was filed by the claimants seeking compensation on account of death of their son Jagat Singh in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 15.04.2003. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month without any basis. At the relevant time, prevalent rate of minimum wages fixed by the State for unskilled labourer was Rs. 1,898/- per month. Therefore, the income of the deceased is to be assessed as Rs. 1,898/- per month i.e. Rs.22,776/- per annum. 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

¶25

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, an addition of 40% is

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CMA-3277/2006]

¶28

liable to be added in the said income towards future prospects of the deceased, which comes to Rs.9,110/-. Thus, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.31,886/- (22,776+9,110). Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was unmarried, one half of the said income is liable to be deducted towards personal expenses. Admittedly, deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident. Thus, to work out the dependency of the claimants, multiplier of 18 would be applied. In this way, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,86,974/- (31,886x1/2x18). The claimants would be further entitled to receive a sum of Rs.55,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the total amount of compensation receivable by the claimants comes to Rs. 3,41,974/-(2,86,974+55,000).

¶29

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Impugned award dated 31.07.2006 is modified to the extent that the compensation amount receivable by the claimants is Rs. 3,41,974/- instead of Rs. 3,67,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall be the same.

¶30

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶31

Mohit42

The New India Assurance Compan v. Devi Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Compan v. Devi Singh 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

R S R T C through Chairman/O I C Vs Anjana Devi and Others

Anjana Devi Andors Vs Sunil Kumar and Anr.

Harnarayan Vs Bhuvnesh and Others

Laxman Singh and Ors. Vs Mahadev Singh and Ors.

Santosh Kumar S/O Shri Sita Ram Vs Mukesh Kumar S/O Late Shri Govind Prasad

Smt Chota Devi and Ors. Vs Shivjiram Jat and Ors.