Partly allowed

Smt. Durga Bai and Ors. v. Mohanlal Dhoot and Anr.

Rajasthan HC2 Aug 2022CMA/1187/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court modified the multiplier from 17 to 18 and added 40% future prospects, increasing the total compensation to Rs. 13,84,000/- along with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 13,84,000/- with 6% interest awarded; impugned award modified.

Smt. Durga Bai and Ors. Vs Mohanlal Dhoot and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1187/2004

¶3

Smt. Durga Bai W/o Late Jaipal, age 27 years,

¶4

Parmanand S/o Late Jaipal, age 7 years,

¶5

Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Bal Chand, age 55 years

¶6

Abl Chand S/o Mool Chand, age 60 years

¶7

Appellant-claimant no.2 is minor through natural guardian and mother Smt. Durga Bai, appellant-claimant No.1.

¶8

All residents of Plot No.55, Dadheech Nagar, Badla Road, Outside third Pole, Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

¶9

----Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Mohanlal Dhoot so Jhumar Lal b/c Maheshwari, Resident of Keru Police Station Soorsagar, District Jodhpur.

¶12

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Near of Jaljog Circle, Residency Road, Jodhpur.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Prashant Panwar
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Jagdish Vyas

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶16

Order

¶17

02/08/2022

¶18

The instant enhancement Civil Misc. Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.08.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in MACT Case No.189/1999, whereby the claim application filed by the claimants-appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act for short) was partly allowed and they were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,41,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum upon the

¶19

(2 of 5)

¶20

[CMA-1187/2004]

¶21

death of Jaipal Parihar in a road accident, which occurred on 06.02.1999.

¶22

Facts in brief are that on 06.02.1999 at 6 PM when the deceased Jaipal Parihar was going to Bambore dispensary from Jodhpur on his Motor Cycle bearing No.RJ-19-10-M3626 alongwith his brother Chetan Das and niece Prem Chand then at about 9 PM at the Jaisalmer to Jodhpur road, a Jeep bearing No.RJ-19-C-8829 (hereinafter referred to as “the Offending Vehicle”), which was being driven by the respondent No.1 herein rashly and negligently, hit the motor cycle of the deceased, resulting into simple and grievous injuries to the deceased and he succumbed at the spot. In the claim petition, it was also claimed that at the time of death, the deceased Jaipal Parihar was about 25 years’ old and he was working as Compounder and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and therefore, claiming under different heads, a total sum of Rs.37,67,000/- was claimed.

¶23

After notice, the driver and owner appeared and submitted their reply to the claim petition claiming therein that there was no fault of the driving of the offending vehicle and it is the deceased, who was drive the motor cycle rashly and negligently.

¶24

The respondent-Insurance Company also submitted its reply to the claim petition denying the averments of the claim petition and submitted that there was a fault of the deceased. It was also claimed that even the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and therefore, the respondent-Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the award amount.

¶25

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal framed three issues on 18.08.2000.

¶26

(3 of 5)

¶27

[CMA-1187/2004]

¶28

On behalf of the claimants, two witness were examined and as many as ten documents were exhibited. On the contrary, the respondent examined Chandradeep Singh as DW-1 and exhibited Insurance Policy as exhibit A-1.

¶29

After conclusion of the trial, the learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and award a sum of Rs.2,41,000/-.

¶30

Challenging the judgment and award dated 19.08.2003, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants submits that the claimants-appellants have preferred the claim petition before the learned tribunal claiming a total sum of Rs.37,67,000/as compensation. It was also pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was 25 years’ old at the time of accident and used to earn a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month by discharging the duties as Compounder.

¶31

The learned tribunal framed the usual issue for consideration and while deciding the claim application held that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident by rash and negligent driving. The claimants-appellants were held entitled to the compensation and the claimants-appellants were awarded a sum of Rs.2,41,000/- as compensation.

¶32

Mr. Prashant Panwar, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the claimants-appellants came out with a specific case that at the time of accident, the deceased Jaipal Parihar was 25 years’ old, however, multiplier of 17 was applied in the case. Not only this, but the learned tribunal has not awarded a single penny towards future prospectus. As per the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SSC 680, the

¶33

(4 of 5)

¶34

[CMA-1187/2004]

¶35

multiplier ought to have been at least 18 and the learned tribunal ought to have added the amount of future prospects. He further submitted that no appropriate consideration was made by the learned tribunal towards rise in income. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned tribunal has also awarded low compensation in relation to the other heads like loss of consortium, love and affection, funeral charges etc. etc.

¶36

Per contra, Mr. Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submits that the learned tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award and there is no scope in enhancing the amount of compensation.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶38

The tribunal held the age of the deceased to be 25 years and has also applied the multiplier of 17, but now as per the ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), the 40% of the future prospect is required to be added and the multiplier of 18 is required to be taken.

¶39

In view of what has been discussed above and looking to the age of deceased at the time of the accident viz. 25 years, the following computation deserves to be just, proper and reasonable for deciding the quantum of enhanced compensation awardable to the appellants.

¶40

Annual income of the	Rs.1,500/-+40% =600	Rs.3,02,400/-
deceased + (40%) increase in income + 18 multiplier –	Total Rs.2100/- (-) 1/3rd
deduction (1/3rd of Income)	Rs. 2100-700 =1400x12x18
Other heads		Rs.77,000/-
Less: Awarded Amount		Rs. 2,41,000/-

¶41

(5 of 5)

¶42

[CMA-1187/2004]

¶43

Total compensation awardable

¶44

Rs. 1,38,4000/-

¶45

The claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., on 08.04.1999.

¶46

The enhanced amount shall be distributed to the claimants as per the terms and conditions enumerated by the learned tribunal.

¶47

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned Judgment and award passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.T., Jodhpur is modified and the appellants are held entitled for enhanced compensation as indicated above.

¶48

Record be sent back forthwith.

¶49

No costs.

¶50

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶51

33-Hanuman/-

Smt. Durga Bai and Ors. v. Mohanlal Dhoot and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Durga Bai and Ors. v. Mohanlal Dhoot and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Kamla Vs Badriji and Ors.

Moola Ram and Anr. Vs Smt. Pragya and Ors.

Moola Ram and Anr. Vs Manoj Kumar and Anr.

Daleep Vs Subhash Chand

Sukh Lal Vs Rajasthan Housing Board and Anr.

Lrs of Ganesh Singh Vs R.S.E.B. and Ors.