Partly allowed

Bhanwar Lal and Ors. v. Chaina Ram and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Aug 2022CMA/1195/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against compensation award for motor accident death. High Court allowed appeal in part, enhancing compensation to Rs. 7,40,390 including future prospects and conventional heads, and awarded Rs. 2,06,390 as enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 7,40,390 granted with interest at 6% from date of filing claim petition; impugned award modified.

Bhanwar Lal and Ors. Vs Chaina Ram and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1195/2012

¶3

Bhanwar Lal S/o Naina Ram, aged 70 years

¶4

Kamla w/o Bhanwar lal, aged 65 years, 3 Smt. Suman w/o late Krishan Gopal, aged 34 years,

¶5

Kushi D/o Late Krishan Gopal, aged 6 years,

¶6

Arjun S/o Late Krishan Gopal, aged 4 years, All by caste Nayak, resident of Veer Durgadas Nagar, Pali, Marwar Junction, District Pali. (appellant No.4 & 5 being minor, are represented through their natural guardian appellant No.3 (mother)

¶7

----Appellants (Claimants)

¶8

Versus

¶9

Chaina Ram S/o Jora Ram, by caste Bawri, resident of Mamroli, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur

¶10

Naval Kishore S/o Chavanda Singh, by caste Rajput, resident of Sanchore, Police Station Parbatsar, District Nagaur

¶11

Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Pali, Tehsil & District Pali

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Prashant Panwar
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	LD Khatri

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Judgment

¶15

04/08/2022

¶16

The Appellants-claimants preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’) seeking enhancement of compensation quantified and awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali (for short, ‘learned Tribunal’) by its judgment and award dated 28.02.2012 in MAC Case No.127/2011. Learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim of appellantclaimants under Section 166 of the Act, has partly allowed the

¶17

(2 of 5)

¶18

[CMA-1195/2012]

¶19

claim petition and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,34,000/- under different heads with interest @ 6% upon the death of one Krishan Gopal in a road accident, which occurred on 15.03.2011.

¶20

Briefly stated the fats of the case are that the deceased Krishan Gopal was going in his Maruti Alto Car to Pushakar on 15.03.2011 and at about 09-10 A.M. when he reached near Padukallan then, at that time, a dumper bearing No. RJ-37-GA0580 (hereinafter referred to “offending vehicle”) which was being driven by driver rashly and negligently, hit the Maruti Alto car. Due to the grievous injuries suffered by the deceased-Krishan Gopal, he died. The incident was reported to the police station Padukallan and FIR No.46/2011 was lodged, wherein Investigating Agency after investigation field challan under Sections 279, 304-A IPC. In the claim petition, it was also claimed that at the time of death, the deceased Krishan Gopal was about 36 years’ old and was doing the work of property dealer from which, he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/-per month.

¶21

The respondent Nos.1 & 2 (driver and owner) have submitted their reply to the claim petition denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was submitted that there was no fault on the part of the offending vehicle.

¶22

On behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company, a separate reply to the claim petition was submitted and by way of raising preliminary objection, it was submitted that the deceased Krishan Gopal was driving his car rashly and negligently. It was also submitted that even the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of

¶23

(3 of 5)

¶24

[CMA-1195/2012]

¶25

accident and, therefore, the resondent-Insurance Comapny cannot be held liable to indemnify the award amount.

¶26

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as three issues on 20.02.2011. In support of their case, the appellants-claimants have examined one witness and also exhibited 19 documents whereas no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

¶27

After conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.5,34,000/-.

¶28

Arguing the present appeal, Mr. Prashant Panwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submits that the appellants-claimants came out with a specific case that at the time of accident the deceased-Krishan Gopal was 36 years’ old and he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/-per month at the time of accident, whereas learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed his income to be Rs. 3500/-per month. It is submitted that at the relevant point of time, the minimum wages if calculated, was Rs.3510/-per month. It is also submitted that learned Tribunal has not awarded amount towards future prospects to the appellants-claimants. It is submitted that now as per the ratio laid down in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, amount towards future prospects to the appellants-claimants is also required to be awarded. He further submitted that learned Tribunal has also awarded low amount of compensation towards conventional heads like loss of consortium, love and affection, funeral charges etc.

¶29

Per contra, Mr. L.D. Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed

¶30

(4 of 5)

¶31

[CMA-1195/2012]

¶32

the impugned judgment and award and there is no scope in enhancing the said amount of compensation.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶34

It is an admitted position that at the time when deceased was died, the minimum wages was Rs.3510/-per month and as per judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), now amount towards future aspects also to be awarded. Not only this, this Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has awarded low amount of compensation towards different conventional heads and therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to award a lump sum amount of Rs.77,000/-under the head of conventional.

¶35

In view of above discussion and looking to the age of the deceased at the time of accident viz. 36 years’, the following computation deserves to be just, proper and reasonable for deciding the quantum of enhanced compensation awardable to the appellants :-

¶36

	For Deceased-Krishan	Gopal
Sr. No.	Particulars	Amount
A.	Loss of Dependency
	i) Income Assessed by this Court	Rs. 3510/-per month
	ii) Future Prospects (40%)	Rs. 1404-/-per month
	Total	Rs. 4914/-per month
	(-) 1/4^th deduction (personal consumption)	Rs. 1228.5/- per month
	(4914-1228.5) Total =	Rs. 3685.5/-per month
	i) Multiplied by 12 Yearly Income)	Rs. 3685.5 X 12 = Rs.44226/-
	ii) Multiplier (15)	Rs. 44226 x 15 = Rs. 6,63,390/-
B.	Conventional Heads	(+)Rs. 77,000/-
	Total Compensation(Round off)	Rs. 7,40,390/-
C.	Alreadyawarded amount(-)	Rs. 5,34,000/-/-

¶37

(5 of 5)

¶38

[CMA-1195/2012]

¶39

D. Total Enhanced Amount

¶40

Rs. 2,06,390/-

¶41

The appellants-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 24.06.2011.

¶42

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

¶43

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by learned Judge, MACT, Pali is modified and the appellants-claimants are held entitled for enhanced compensation as indicated above.

¶44

Record be sent back forthwith.

¶45

No costs.

¶46

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶47

100-Bharti/-

Bhanwar Lal and Ors. v. Chaina Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Lal and Ors. v. Chaina Ram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priyag Chand Vs Gajanand and Ors.

Jagdev Singh Vs Manisha Devi

Jetha Ram Vs Madan Singh

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Harji and Ors.

Harji Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Vs Mohan Singh and Ors.