Dismissed

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

Rajasthan HC13 Jul 2021CMA/332/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two miscellaneous appeals arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.38,72,500 for the death of Uchchav Kumar. The Court found no merit in the claimants' appeal to enhance compensation or the insurer's appeal to reduce it, upholding the Tribunal's findings.

What did the court decide?

Appeals for enhancement of compensation and repayment to be reduced are dismissed.

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1291/2020

¶3

Bhanu Jain w/o Late Shri Uchchav Kumar Jain, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Jainyon Ki Gali, Village Aawa, Tehsil Duni, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶4

Teena Jain D/o Late Shri Uchchav Kumar Jain, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Jainyon Ki Gali, Village Aawa, Tehsil Duni, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶5

Beena Jain D/o Late Shri Uchchav Kumar Jain, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Jainyon Ki Gali, Village Aawa, Tehsil Duni, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶6

Ankita Jain D/o Late Shri Uchchav Kumar Jain, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Jainyon Ki Gali, Village Aawa, Tehsil Duni, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶7

Rajat Jain S/o Late Shri Uchchav Kumar Jain, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Bhanu, Resident Of Jainyon Ki Gali, Village Aawa, Tehsil Duni, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶8

Chatru Bai W/o Late Manak Chand Jain, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Jainyon Ki Gali, Village Aawa, Tehsil Duni, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶9

----Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Laduram S/o Purkharam, Resident Of Jakharo Ki Dhani, Chainpura Falodi, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶12

Noor Mohd. S/o Gafur Khan, Resident Of Sherniya, Ki Dhani, Chainpura Falodi, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶13

Chola Mandalam M.s. General Insurance Company Limited, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

Connected With

¶16

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 332/2020

¶17

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Jaipur Having Its Office At Unit No. 704-708, Signature Tower, District Shopping Centre, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302015 Through Its Constituted Attorney (Insurance Company Of Vehicle No. Rj-43-Ga-1149).

----Appellant

(2 of 5)

[CMA-1291/2020]

Versus

Bhanu Jain W/o Late Ucchhav Kumar Jain, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Janiyon Ki Gali, Vill. Anwa, Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk (Raj.).

¶23

Teena Jain D/o Late Ucchhav Kumar Jain, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Janiyon Ki Gali, Vill. Anwa, Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk (Raj.).

¶24

Beena Jain D/o Late Ucchhav Kumar Jain, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Janiyon Ki Gali, Vill. Anwa, Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk (Raj.).

¶25

Ankita Jain D/o Late Ucchhav Kumar Jain, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Janiyon Ki Gali, Vill. Anwa, Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk (Raj.).

¶26

Rajat Jain S/o Late Ucchhav Kumar Jain, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian And Mother Bhanu, R/o Janiyon Ki Gali, Vill. Anwa, Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk (Raj.).

¶27

Chatru Bai W/o Late Manakchand Jain, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Janiyon Ki Gali, Vill. Anwa, Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶28

Laduram S/o Purkharam, R/o Jakhadon Ki Dhani, Chainpura, Phalodi, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

¶29

Noor Mohammad S/o Gafoor Khan, R/o Sheraniya Ki Dhani, Chainpura, Phalodi, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

¶30

----Respondents

¶31

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Advocate for the Claimants For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agarwal, Advocate (through video-conferencing) with Mr. Prakhar Agarwal, Advocate for the Insurance-company

¶32

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

¶33

Order

¶34

13/07/2021 :

¶35

These two miscellaneous appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 15.10.2019 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in

¶36

(3 of 5)

¶37

[CMA-1291/2020]

¶38

Claim Application No.339/2017 titled as Bhanu Jain & Others Vs. Laduram & Others, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the Claim Petition, awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.38,72,500/alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants on account of death of Uchhav Kumar in a road accident and ordered to recover the compensation award amount from the non-claimants jointly and severely.

¶39

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

¶40

In short, the relevant facts of the present case are that on 28.03.2017 Ucchab Kumar slept on a cot outside after finishing his routine work. At some distance, a truck bearing registration No.RJ-43GA 1149 owned by respondent No.2 was parked. At around 10:00 P.M. respondent No.1 drove the truck without any hint or blowing the horn, in rash and negligent manner and had overrun Ucchab Kumar, while taking the truck in reverse gear, as he was sleeping outside, on the cot. Ucchab Kumar suffered serious injuries on lower part of his waist, due to which he died.

¶41

The learned Tribunal, after hearing all the parties, vide its impugned judgment and award dated 15.10.2019, partly allowed the Claim Petition filed by the claimants and awarded compensation, as aforesaid in their favour.

¶42

Being dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1291/2020 has been preferred by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of compensation amount, whereas S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.332/2020 has been filed by the appellant-company for reducing the award amount.

¶43

(4 of 5)

¶44

[CMA-1291/2020]

¶45

The learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellantssubmits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is abysmally low. Counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has committed error in deducting 1/4th of the amount towards ‘personal expenses’ of the deceased inspite of the fact that six persons are dependents on the income of the deceased. Counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the heads of medical expenses, traveling expenses and etc. Counsel contends that the learned Tribunal had applied multiplier looking to the average span of life, whereas higher multiplier ought to have been applied. Counsel also contends that the learned Tribunal has considered the future prospects only to the extent of 30%, which is liable to be enhanced. 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.

¶46

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-company opposes the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants and submits that the learned Tribunal, while deciding issue No.1, has committed a grave error in relying upon the charge-sheet and the statement of alleged eyewitness. Counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue Nos.2 & 4, has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.25,000/- merely on the basis of Exhibit-22 i.e. Income Certificate printed on letter-head of the Firm. Counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal, while applying the multiplier, has committed grave error, as the age of the deceased was 50 years on the basis of postmortem report available on record, which means 50 plus, therefore, multiplier of 12 for the age group of 51-55 must have been adopted and the learned Tribunal has assessed 30% towards ‘future prospects’, whereas the deceased was not in a stable job. Lastly, counsel submits

¶47

(5 of 5)

¶48

[CMA-1291/2020]

¶49

that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on higher side without any factual foundation and, thus, the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside and the amount awarded may be reduced adequately.

¶50

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.

¶51

The learned Tribunal, while dealing with the evidence available on record, took into consideration all the aspects of matter viz., negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, monetary loss to the claimants on account of death of Ucchab Kumar and has rightly awarded total Rs.38,72,500/- as compensation in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants and appellant-company, which is just and proper.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

¶57

ASHOK/46-47

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

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

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