Appeal against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation for death in a motor accident. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the compensation awarded just and reasonable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 155212022
Versus
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshat Choudhary, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judqment
25/08/2022
Instant appeal filed by the appellants-claimants (for short 'the claimants') for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 10.05.2022 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (for
short 'the Tribunal'), whereby ttie' Tribu;nal awarded a sum of Rs.21,16,845/as compensation al,ong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.
It is submitted by the lea~~ned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal committed an erroa:in awarding lesser amount of compensation. At the time of accide&, the deceased was working as a Lab Assistant and if he would hage been alive, on completion 7.1 (a'r:r. of probation period . ...h, . d:Lc$i?lld.lave . , ,, gobh$egul,ar r -..CV pay scale and his .. ? .%.-. 3 i 'ii-s. income could ?have been Rs. 240241- per mont.h,~~ut the Tribunal \ -3F 4" has erredi;i'nr"considering the monthly income of thei&ceased s C~ at " i P *' 2. Rs. 89101-.
I for the Insurance the judgment and
missions made by the learned counsel for ve perused the material available on record.
e claimants seeking I .* . .. compensation on account of death bf.!acjeet Singh in the motor '. .a ' ,.... S. i -.'m .'..%$Z' .< vehicle accident which oAc,crted ,1&!~22;~4.2016. Although, the fiF],+pj C. G!;Qq case of the claimants was that thS deceased was working as Lab Assistant in Community Health Centre- and on completion of probation period,. his monthly income could have been Rs. 240241but to corroborate the same, no evidence was produced on record by the claimants. Rather it was admitted by AW-1 Roshan that at the time of accident his husband was getting Rs. 89101per month as salary. From notification (Ex.T6:3 and appointment letter (Ex.17) of the deceased, it was clear that at the time of accident
the deceased was on two years.:.,p;rqb,ation and was getting Rs. 89101- per month as salary an',.j.fa:Ri;ri& into consideration the >, . : . . . o. . ,. future enhancement in the income,pi50/ .,,. amount towards future prospects was rightly awarded by tti6j:Tribunal in the light of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble 1,Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v=. Pranay Sethi & Ors,, reported in AIR 201 7 SC 51 57.
The judg:m.eA$ ;and award..@'as$ed 2by the Tribunal does b not call for anYv\nterference 5.* + by ttiiS'co4rt as~tbe compensation %$ i" " ,k 8 ." awarded EptiRe Tribunal is just and r$asoii'able. :Aaj ".
and is accordingly dismissed. (PRAKASR GUPTA),J
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation below the claimants' projected future income.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires interference on grounds of pendency of legal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.Referred¶20
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 · Who else cites this
Roshan Sutliya
Parth Sutliya
Foture Generali India Insurance Company Ltd.
Sanjay Kumar Soni
Rohit Kumar
Prakash Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
