Partly allowed

Velji v. Ramesh Bhati

Rajasthan HC3 Mar 2022CMA/2720/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the appeal in part, holding that the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's income, applying the wrong multiplier, and making excessive deductions. It enhanced the compensation by an additional Rs. 1,65,000/-, directing the insurer to deposit the sum with the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award is modified to include an additional lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/-, payable by Respondent No. 2 to the Tribunal.

Velji Vs Ramesh Bhati — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2720/2019

¶3

Velji S/o Lal Ji Kalasua, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Batikada, Tehsil And District Dungarpur.

¶4

Nanu Ram S/o Lal Ji Kalasua, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Batikada, Tehsil And District Dungarpur.

¶5

Harish S/o Lal Ji Kalasua, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Batikada, Tehsil And District Dungarpur.

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ramesh Bhati S/o Tara Chand Bhati, R/o 5, Ghanchiyon Ka Bas Police Station Kotwali, Tehsil And District Pali (Driver/owner)

¶9

The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Office, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur. (Insurer)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	GS Rathore
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	MP Goswami

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶13

Judgment

¶14

03/03/2022

¶15

The instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants being aggrieved of the judgment dated 21.5.2019 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur in M. A. C. P. Case No.196/2018, thereby the claim petition filed by the appellants claiming compensation for the death of one, Lal Ji, was partly allowed and a sum of Rs.2,28,300/- was awarded as compensation to the claimantsappellants.

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

[CMA-2720/2019]

¶18

The appellants herein are the legal representatives & dependents of late Shri Lalji. The deceased was roaming near Badikata Bus stand on 11.4.2016 and at about 6.00 PM, the driver/owner of the motor cycle bearing No.RJ-12-SZ-8224 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), namely Ramesh Bhati drove the motorcycle rashly and negligently, resulting into an accident, in which Lalji suffered number of injuries and thereafter, expired.

¶19

It was claimed in the claim petition that at the time of accident, the deceased was 58 years’ old and was a skilled labourer earning a sum of Rs.23,000/- per month. Claiming a total sum of Rs.52,30,000/-, the claim petition was preferred by the appellants-claimants.

¶20

The learned Tribunal framed the usual issues regarding the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by its driver being the cause of accident, the defences and objections raised by the non-claimants, the entitlement of the claimants to receive the compensation and if so, the quantum thereof.

¶21

The appellants examined 2 witnesses in support of the claim and also got exhibited as many as 14 documents.

¶22

On behalf of respondent-insurance company, one document was got exhibited and no witness was examined either by the driver/owner or by the insurance company.

¶23

The Tribunal whilst assessing the award held the income of the deceased to be Rs.5,226/- per month. A deduction of half of the income was made towards personal needs and expenses of the deceased. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was held to be above 65 years. A multiplier of 5 was applied. A consolidated sum of of Rs.40,000 was awarded to all the claimants

¶24

(3 of 5)

¶25

[CMA-2720/2019]

¶26

towards loss of love and affection and consortium. The appellants have thus approached this Court by way of the instant appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal.

¶27

Mr. GS Rathore, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal committed a grave error in not accepting the evidence of the claimants regarding the income of the deceased. He submitted that the testimony of the claimants in this regard remained un-rebutted and thus, there was no justification available with the Tribunal to discard the evidence regarding the income of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that at the time of accident, the deceased was of 58 years of age, which is very much clear from the documents placed on record and was doing the masonry work and thus, he was skilled labourer. Not only this, he was also earning from agricultural work and therefore, his monthly income was above Rs.23,000/-. It is also submitted that even the factum of occupation of the deceased was not effectively rebutted by the respondents in the crossexamination.

¶28

Further, learned counsel appearing for the appellantsclaimants submits that the since the deceased was of the age of 58 years at the time of death, therefore, the multiplier of 5 has wrongly been applied by the learned tribunal and the same deserved to be 7.

¶29

It was further submitted that the Tribunal made deduction of half towards the personal needs and expenses of the deceased, despite the fact that the claimants were 3 in number. He submits that the deduction under this head could be made at 1/3rd only

¶30

(4 of 5) [CMA-2720/2019]

¶31

looking to the number of the claimants. He thus urged that appropriate enhancement be directed in the award by taking into account the aforesaid factors.

¶32

Per contra, Mr. MP Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 insurance company opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellants. It was submitted that the amount awarded by the tribunal is already excessive and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal.

¶33

Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the impugned judgment and record. The first argument which needs to be addressed is regarding the income of the deceased. As per the claimants' case, the deceased was earning around Rs.23000/- per month by doing the job of masonry and agricultural, however, the learned tribunal assessed the same to be Rs.5226/-. This Court fails to understand that a person having age of 58 years doing the work of masonry and agricultural being the skilled one, could earn a sum of Rs.5226/- per month as assessed by the learned tribunal. The deduction of 1/2 also wrongly been made by the learned tribunal.

¶34

In view of what has been discussed above and looking to the age of the deceased at the time of the accident, this Court is of the opinion that in addition to the awarded amount to the tune of Rs.2,28,300/-, the appellants are further entitled for lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,65,000/-.

¶35

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur is modified to the extent that appellants are also held entitled for further lump sum compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- in addition to already awarded compensation of

¶36

(5 of 5)

¶37

[CMA-2720/2019]

¶38

Rs.2,28,300/-. The respondent no.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- in the learned tribunal within a period of two months from today, failing which, it shall carry interest @ 6% per annum.

¶39

Thereafter, the learned tribunal is directed to disburse the same in accordance with the judgment and award passed by it.

¶40

The record of the learned tribunal be sent forthwith for compliance of this order.

¶41

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶42

65-CPGoyal/-

Velji v. Ramesh Bhati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velji v. Ramesh Bhati

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

State of Rajasthan Vs Iqbal @ Duli

Manoj Surana Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Lrs of Meghraj Tavad Vs Bhanwar Lal

Seema Vs State

Saddam Vs State of Rajasthan