Partly allowed

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Anita Devi and Others

Rajasthan HC8 Apr 2019CMA/5955/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On appeal, the Bench examined whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of Suman Prakash Sharma was appropriate. The Court dismissed the insurer's appeal challenging the claim and allowed the claimants' appeal seeking enhancement.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of the Tribunal modified reducing compensation to Rs. 47,77,174; Insurance Company's appeal allowed; Claimants' appeal dismissed.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Anita Devi… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

1. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5955/2016

¶3

Shriram General Insurance Company, Alwar, Having Its Head Office E-8, Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur Through Its Constituted Attorney

¶4

----Non-Claimant/Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Anita Devi W/o Late Shri Suman Prakash Sharma, aged about 26 years, R/o Vill. And Post Bohra Ki Dhani, Goriya, Teh. Chomu, Distt. Jaipur Raj.

¶7

Kumari Shivangi Sharma D/o Late Shri Suman Prakash Sharma, aged about 8 years being Minor Through Her Natural Guardian and her mother Smt. Anita Devi W/o Late Shri Suman Prakash Sharma, R/o Vill. And Post Bohra Ki Dhani, Goriya, Teh. Chomu, Distt. Jaipur Raj.

¶8

Bhagwan Sahai Sharma S/o Late Shri Dhannalal Sharma, aged about 64 years, R/o Vill. And Post Bohra Ki Dhani, Goriya, Teh. Chomu, Distt. Jaipur Raj.

¶9

Smt. Dhapa Devi W/o Shri Bhagwan Sahai Sharma, aged about 59 years, R/o Vill. And Post Bohra Ki Dhani, Goriya, Teh. Chomu, Distt. Jaipur Raj.

¶10

….Claimants/Respondents

¶11

Ameen Khan S/o Shri Gilar Khan B/c Musalman Driver Of Auto Rickshaw No. Rj-14-Pa-8526, R/o 1403, Va Nmagar Kacchi Basti, Lankapuri, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶12

Nanhe Bano W/o Shri Ameer Khan, B/c Musalman Registered Owner Of Auto Rickshaw No. Rj-14-PA-8526, R/o 1403, Va Nmagar Kacchi Basti, Lankapuri, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶13

----Non-Claimants/Respondents

¶14

2. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6420/2016

¶15

Smt. Anita Devi Sharma W/o Late Suman Prakash Sharma,

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

[CMA-5955/2016]

¶18

aged about 26 years, R/o Village And Post Bohra Ki Dhani, Goriyan, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur

¶19

Shivangi Sharma D/o Late Suman Prakash Sharma, aged about 8 years, Minor Through Her Mother And Natural Guardian Anita Sharma W/o Late Suman Prakash Sharma R/o Village And Post Bohra Ki Dhani, Goriyan, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur

¶20

Bhagwan Sahay Sharma S/o Late Dhanna Lal Sharma, aged about 64 years, R/o Village And Post Bohra Ki Dhani, Goriyan, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur

¶21

Dhapa Devi W/o Bhagwan Sahay Sharma, aged 59 years, R/o Village And Post Bohra Ki Dhani, Goriyan, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur

¶22

----Claimants/Appellants

¶23

Versus

¶24

Ameer Khan S/o Gilari Khan, B/c Musalman, R/o 1403, Vijay Nagar, Kacchi Basti, Lankapuri, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur DriverAuto Rickshaw No. Rj-14-Pa-8526.

¶25

Nanne Bano W/o Ameer By Caste Musalman, R/o 1403, Vijay Nagar, Kacchi Basti, Lankapuri, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur Owner Auto Rickshaw No. Rj-14-Pa-8526.

¶26

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Having Its Regional Office At B-8, Epip, RICCO Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur through its Regional Manager (Insurer- Auto Rickshaw No. Rj-14-Pa-8526, Cover Note No. 553758 Valid From 12.11.2011 To 11.11.2012).

¶27

---- Non-Claimant/Respondents

¶28

For Insurance Company : Mr. Virendra Agarwal Adv. For Non-Claimants : Mr. Rajiv Dwivedi Adv. For Claimants : Mr. Vinay Mathur Adv.

¶29

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judgment / Order

¶30

08/04/2019

¶31

Vide this order, above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of as they have arisen out of the common award dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

¶32

(3 of 5)

¶33

[CMA-5955/2016]

¶34

Claimants had filed the claim petition, seeking compensation on account of death of Suman Prakash Sharma in the motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on 22.09.2012. Tribunal vide the impugned award dated 06.09.2016 has allowed the claim petition. Hence, the Insurance Company has filed an appeal seeking dismissal of the claim petition, whereas, the claimants have filed an appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.

¶35

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that there was delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR. Hence, it was evident that the vehicle-in-question had been falsely involved in this case. Learned counsel has further submitted that the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal was also on a higher side.

¶36

Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the claimants had been successful in establishing that the deceased had died on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/auto-in-question, which had occurred on 22.09.2012. Compensation amount granted by the Tribunal was on a lower side and requires to be enhanced.

¶37

Learned counsel for the owner and driver of the offending vehicle has supported the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶38

Claimants had filed claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Suman Prakash Sharma in the motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on 22.09.2012.

¶39

In order to prove that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/autoin-question, claimants examined AW-2 Kamlesh Sharma. The said

¶40

(4 of 5)

¶41

[CMA-5955/2016]

¶42

witness deposed that on 22.09.2012, he was walking with Suman Prakash Sharma. They were waiting for a bus. At about 8.15 p.m., Auto bearing registration No. RJ-14PA-8526 came from Chomu Puliya side being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and struck against Suman Prakash Sharma. As a result, Suman Prakash Sharma suffered injuries and was removed to the hospital for treatment. However, Suman Prakash Sharma died on 05.10.2012.

¶43

Driver of the offending vehicle/auto-in-question had not appeared in the witness box in rebuttal, hence, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him. Statement of AW-2 inspires confidence. FIR with regard to the accident-in-question was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle/auto-inquestion. In the initial medical record of the deceased, it was mentioned that he had suffered injuries in a road side accident. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, learned Tribunal had rightly decided Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants.

¶44

With regard to the income of the deceased, claimants had proved on record Exhibit-13. Learned Tribunal has rightly based reliance on the income tax return of the deceased Exhibit-13 to assess his income as Rs.2,95,170/- per annum. Deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘17’ to work out the amount of compensation.

¶45

Claimants are the widow, minor child and parents of the deceased. Keeping in view the nature of relationship of the claimants and their number, Tribunal should have deducted 1/3rd out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses to work out the dependency of the claimants.

¶46

(5 of 5)

¶47

[CMA-5955/2016]

¶48

Thus, the claimants would be entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs.1,96,667/- X 17 = Rs.33,43,339/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive an addition of 40% of the said amount towards loss of future prospects of the deceased and the said amount comes to Rs.13,37,335/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Deceased had remained admitted in the hospital for 14 days. Hence, the Claimants would be entitled to receive Rs. 7,000/- towards hospitalization expenses. Claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs. 19,500/- towards medical bills regarding treatment of the deceased, before his death, proved on record.

¶49

Thus, the claimants would be entitled to receive in all Rs.33,43,339 + Rs.13,37,335 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000/- + Rs. 7,000/- + Rs.19,500/- = Rs.47,77,174/-.

¶50

Accordingly, S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.5955/2016 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed and S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.6420/2016 filed by the Claimants is dismissed. Impugned award dated 06.09.2016 is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.47,77,174/- by way of compensation instead of Rs. 57,42,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The remaining terms and conditions of the award shall remain unchanged.

¶51

S.Kumawat-30-31

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Anita Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Anita Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramchandra Vs Roshanlal and Ors.

Aarti W/O Late Shri Ravi Kumar Vs Manjeet Singh S/O Shri Mathura Singh

Rakesh Jhajharia S/O Shri Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxminarayan Vs Vikram and Ors.

Chiraguddin Alias Chirag Qureshi Vs Dataram and Ors.

Roshan Lal Kamad Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.