Dismissed

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Mantosh W/O Late Shri Sachin

Rajasthan HC13 Jul 2021CMA/2462/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two miscellaneous appeals, one by an insurance company seeking reduction and another by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court found the Tribunal's assessment just and proper.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals filed by the appellant insurance company and the claimant appellants were dismissed.

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2462/2019

¶3

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Regional Manager, Regional Office, Dare House, Second Floor, No. 234, N.s.c. Bose Road, Chennai 600001, Having Its Office At E-52, Second Floor, A.r.g Building, Chitranjan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Constituted Attorney (Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. Uk-07-Ca0770)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Mantosh W/o Late Shri Sachin, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Bakhrana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶7

Smt. Poorni W/o Sedhuram, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Bakhrana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶8

Sedhuram @ Sadhuram S/o Shri Manguram, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Bakhrana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶9

Santosh D/o Shri Sedhuram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Bakhrana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶10

Dharampal S/o Shri Sedhuram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Bakhrana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶11

Kamlesh S/o Shri Sedhuram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Bakhrana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶12

Mukesh D/o Shri Sedhuram, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Bakhrana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶13

Avinash Kumar S/o Shri Moladsingh, R/o Dhandolikheda, Police Station Chilkana, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh (Driver Of Vehicle No. Uk-07-Ca-0770)

¶14

Suraj Singh S/o Pundeer S/o Shri Prem Singh Pundeer, R/o Kawli General Mahadev Singh Road, Dehradoon, Police Station Indra Nagar Colony, District Dehradoon, Uttrakhand (Registered Owner Of Vehicle No. Uk-07-Ca-0770)

¶15

Devendra Singh S/o Harbans Singh, R/o Clean Post Kalanoor, Police Station Kalanoor, District Gurudaspur, Punjab, Driver Of Vehicle No. Hr-55-F-9934

¶16

M/s Shri Bajaji Careers, 40 Transport Centre, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi 110035 Through Power Of Attorney Holder Sani Agarwal S/o Shri Sunil Agarwal, R/o A-2/17, Miyawali Nagar West Vihar, New Delhi, Police Station Miyawali, Delhi, Owner Of

¶17

(2 of 7)

¶18

[CMA-2462/2019]

¶19

Vehicle No. Hr-55-F-9934

¶20

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Regional Manager, Regional Office, Transport Nagar, Jaipur, Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. Hr-55-F-9934.

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

Connected With

¶23

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2501/2020

¶24

Smt. Mantosh W/o Late Shri Sachin, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Bakhrana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶25

Smt. Poorni W/o Sedhuram, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Bakhrana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶26

Sedhuram @ Sadhuram S/o Shri Manguram, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Bakhrana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶27

Santosh D/o Shri Sedhuram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Bakhrana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶28

Dharampal S/o Shri Sedhuram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Bakhrana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶29

Kamlesh S/o Shri Sedhuram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Bakhrana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶30

Mukesh D/o Shri Sedhuram, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Bakhrana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶31

----Appellants

¶32

Versus

¶33

Avinash Kumar S/o Shri Moladsingh, R/o Dhandolikheda, Police Station Chilkana, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh (Driver Of Vehicle No. Uk-07-Ca-0770)

¶34

Suraj Singh S/o Pundeer S/o Shri Prem Singh Pundeer, R/o Kawli General Mahadev Singh Road, Dehradoon, Police Station Indra Nagar Colony, District Dehradoon, Uttrakhand (Registered Owner Of Vehicle No. Uk-07-Ca-0770)

¶35

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Regional Manager, Regional Office, Dare House, Second Floor, No. 234, N.s.c. Bose Road, Chennai-600001 (Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. Uk-07-Ca-0770)

¶36

Devendra Singh S/o Harbans Singh, R/o Clean Post Kalanoor, Police Station Kalanoor, District Gurudaspur, Punjab, Driver Of Vehicle No. Hr-55-F-9934

¶37

(3 of 7)

¶38

[CMA-2462/2019]

¶39

M/s Shri Balaji Careers, 40, Transport Centre, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi-110035 Through Power Of Attorney Holder Sani Agarwal S/o Shri Sunil Agarwal, R/o A-2/17, Miyawali Nagar West Vihar, New Delhi, Police Station Miyawali, Delhi, Owner Of Vehicle No. Hr-55-F-9934

¶40

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Regional Manager, Regional Office, Transport Nagar, Jaipur, Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. Hr-55-F-9934

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

For Respondent(s)

: Mr. Prakhar Agarwal, Advocate for the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited

¶45

: Mr. Hemant Singh Yadav, Advocate for the Claimants & Mr. Ram Singh Bhati, Advocate for the United India Insurance Company Limited

¶46

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

¶47

Order

¶48

13/07/2021 :

¶49

These two miscellaneous appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 01.02.2019 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli District Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. Case No.594/2011 titled as Smt. Mantosh & Others Vs. Avinash Kumar & Others, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.13,87,473/- in favour of the claimants on account of death of Sachin @ Prithvi and ordered to recover the compensation award amount from the non-claimants jointly and severely.

¶50

Since, these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment and award, they are being decided together by this common order.

¶51

(4 of 7)

¶52

[CMA-2462/2019]

¶53

In short, the relevant facts of the present case are that on 22.03.2011 Jagdish Prasad was coming to Jaipur to buy vegetables in his vehicle Tata 909 bearing registration No.RJ-32 GA 7329. In the said vehicle, second driver Sachin @ Prithvi @ Azad Chain Sagar, businessman Ghanshyam Saini and labourer Ramkishore Saini were also sitting. At around 04:15, when they were going towards express highway road, near Manpura, a tanker, bearing registration No.HR-55 F 9934 being driven in rash and negligent manner, turned over and oil spilled the oil on the road due to which traffic was moving slowly. Vehicle bearing registration No.HR-47 H 1111 was being driven in front of Tata 909 (RJ-32 GA 7329). A Trola (UK 07 CA 0770) came at high speed and dashed Tata 909 from behind, thereupon vehicles plying on the road collided with each other. In the said accident, second driver Sachin @ Prithvi and Ghanshyam Saini suffered grievous injuries, due to which they died.

¶54

In the present case, earlier also the learned Tribunal, after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition filed by the claimants of deceased Sachin @ Prithvi vide award dated 06.11.2015 holding the appellant-company i.e. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited liable to pay compensation upto 70% and 30% liability was fastened upon the United India Insurance Company Limited and awarded Rs.7,84,400/- as compensation.

¶55

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award dated 06.11.2015 the claimants preferred an appeal being S.B. C.M.A. No.1432/2016 titled as Mantosh & Others Vs. Avinash Kumar & Others, for enhancement of compensation amount. The said appeal was partly allowed vide order dated 09.02.2017 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the Issue No.4 afresh.

¶56

(5 of 7)

¶57

[CMA-2462/2019]

¶58

The learned Tribunal, again after hearing all the parties, vide its impugned judgment and award dated 01.02.2019, partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and after re-assessing awarded Rs.13,87,473/- as compensation, alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing claim petition till actual payment in favour of the claimants on account of death of Sachin @ Prithvi in a road accident and ordered to recover the compensation award amount from the nonclaimants jointly and severely.

¶59

Being dissatisfied by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award dated 01.02.2019, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2462/2019 has been filed by the appellant/insurance-company for reducing the award amount, whereas S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2501/2020 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

¶60

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-company submits that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in deciding issue relating to the quantum of compensation against the appellantcompany and the compensation amount has been assessed on a higherside looking to the evidence available on record. Counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal, while deciding issue relating to the quantum of compensation, has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,150/- per month, though there were no documentary evidence produced on record and, thus, the income cannot be determined to be more than Rs.15,000/- per annum. Counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has committed further error in taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased to the extent of 40%, as the deceased was not in stationary job. Counsel contends that the learned Tribunal has committed error in deducting 1/4th amount towards ‘personal expenses’, though the learned Tribunal was of the view that there are only two dependents, thus, 1/3rd amount ought to

¶61

(6 of 7)

¶62

[CMA-2462/2019]

¶63

have been deducted. Counsel further contends that the learned Tribunal has awarded an excessive amount without having any factual foundation, thus, the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside and the amount awarded may be reduced.

¶64

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, opposes the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-company and submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.4, is abysmally low. Counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider this fact that the deceased was a driver aged about 30 years having income of Rs.10,500/- per month and apart from that he was also having income from the agricultural resources but the learned Tribunal assessed the income of Rs.6,150/- per month only. Counsel contends that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs.13,87,473/- as compensation to the claimants on account of death of Sachin @ Prithvi in a road accident. Lastly, counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding total compensation in favour of the claimants, which is on lower side and the same is liable to be enhanced suitably.

¶65

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the material made available on record.

¶66

The learned Tribunal, while dealing with the evidence available on record, took into consideration all aspects of matter viz., negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, monetary loss to the claimants on account of death of Sachin @ Prithi and rightly awarded a sum of Rs.13,87,473/- as compensation in favour of claimants and against the non-claimants and insurance-company, which is just and proper.

¶67

(7 of 7) [CMA-2462/2019]

¶68

I am also in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award and there is no reason to take a different view already taken by the Tribunal.

¶69

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any force in the appeal filed by the appellant-company, as also the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants as they, being bereft of any merit, are hereby dismissed.

¶70

Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeals, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶71

Let a copy of this order be placed in connected file.

¶72

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

¶73

ASHOK/42-43

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Mantosh W/O Late Shri Sachin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Mantosh W/O Late Shri Sachin

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

Dinesh S/O Mahipal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramkishan @ Kaliya S/O Shri Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramdas Trust Digee Vs Mu Anup Devi and Ors.

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Bhanu Jain W/O Late Ucchhav Kumar Jain

Bhanu Jain S/O Late Shri Uchchav Kumar Jain Vs Laduram S/O Purkharam

Reliance Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Pooja Devi and Others